Perceiving War and the Military in Early Christian Gaul, Ca. 400-700 A.D. 9004256180, 9789004256187

Citation preview

Perceiving War and the Military in Early Christian Gaul (ca. 400–700 a.d.)

Brill’s Series on the Early Middle Ages (continuation of The Transformation of the Roman World) Managing Editor

Bonnie Effros

University of Florida

Editorial Board

Deborah Deliyannis, Indiana University Edward James, University College Dublin Walter Pohl, Austrian Academy of Sciences

VOLUME 22

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bsem

Perceiving War and the Military in Early Christian Gaul (ca. 400–700 a.d.) By

Laury Sarti

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013

Cover illustration: Silver coin bearing the name of the major domus Ebroin. Obv: Portrait of Ebroin, with his right hand raised. Rev: EBRO/INO. Minted in Paris or Brioude. Dim. 11 mm, 1,23 g. Found in Bais (France). Collection Bais 99, Acc. 21/1929m. Location: Münzkabinett der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Illustration from http://www.smb.museum/ikmk/, inv. nr. 18202329. Courtesy of Prof. Dr. Bernd Kluge. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sarti, Laury. Perceiving war and the military in early Christian Gaul (ca. 400–700 a.d.) / by Laury Sarti. pages cm. -- (Brill’s series on the early Middle Ages, ISSN 1878–4879 ; volume 22) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-25618-7 (hardback : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-90-04-25805-1 (e-book) 1. Gaul-History, Military. 2. Gaul--History--58 b.c.-511 a.d. I. Title. DC63.S28 2013 936.4’02--dc23 2013027245

Supported by the Fonds National de la Recherche, Luxembourg (FNR/12/AM4/36 and TR-PHD FR07-118). This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 1878-4879 ISBN 978-90-04-25618-7 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-25805-1 (e-book) Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

To Bikkhu

CONTENTS List of Illustrations�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� xi Preface����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xiii List of Abbreviations���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� xv I Introduction�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 II Early Christian Gaul����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������13 1. From Late Roman to Merovingian Gaul�����������������������������������������������13 2. Late Roman and Merovingian Military������������������������������������������������21 3. Authority and Rulership in Transformation���������������������������������������29 4. Late Roman and Merovingian Society��������������������������������������������������37 5. Conclusion���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������43 III Archaeological and Written Evidence��������������������������������������������������������47 1. The Physical Remains – Nature and Relevance���������������������������������47 1.1. War in the Landscape�����������������������������������������������������������������������48 1.2. Personal Remains�������������������������������������������������������������������������������51 1.3. Inscriptions and Depictions������������������������������������������������������������56 1.4. Summary����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������60 2. The Written Sources – Authors and Intentions���������������������������������61 2.1. Fifth-Century Responses to the Crisis������������������������������������������62 2.2. Exchanges between the Powerful��������������������������������������������������67 2.3. Chronicles and Histories������������������������������������������������������������������74 2.4. Lives of the Saints������������������������������������������������������������������������������78 2.5. Summary����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������81 3. Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������83 IV Perceiving the World of War�������������������������������������������������������������������������85 1. Warfare according to the Written Testimony��������������������������������������85 1.1. Spiritual Attitudes������������������������������������������������������������������������������86 1.2. Secular Perceptions���������������������������������������������������������������������������90 1.3. The non-Roman Testimony�������������������������������������������������������������97 1.4. Summary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 102 2. Perceiving Military Men������������������������������������������������������������������������ 102 2.1. Writing about Military Men��������������������������������������������������������� 103

viii

contents

2.2. Contemporary Assessment of Military Men��������������������������� 108 2.3. Portraying Military Men���������������������������������������������������������������� 117 2.4. Summary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 129 3. Contemporary Perceptions of Armed Violence������������������������������� 130 3.1. Warfare in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages���������� 130 3.2. Participating in Military Activities��������������������������������������������� 134 3.3. The Non-military Experience of Military Violence��������������� 136 3.4. Thinking Peace�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 144 3.5. Summary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 150 4. Conclusion�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 151 V The Military and the World of Thought��������������������������������������������������� 153 1. Self-Assessment and Presentation������������������������������������������������������� 153 1.1. A new Terminology������������������������������������������������������������������������ 153 1.2. Changing Military Identities�������������������������������������������������������� 161 1.3. Framing the Military Elite������������������������������������������������������������� 165 1.4. Summary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 174 2. War and Violence perceived by the Military������������������������������������� 175 2.1. Defining ‘Warfare’ (bellum)���������������������������������������������������������� 176 2.2. Taking Part in Armed Conflicts��������������������������������������������������� 179 2.3. Personal and Political Incitements��������������������������������������������� 192 2.4. War and other Armed Violence�������������������������������������������������� 200 2.5. The Use of Force and Preventions of Violence����������������������� 206 2.6. Summary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 213 3. Prevailing in a Militarised Society�������������������������������������������������������� 213 3.1. Supremacy���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 214 3.2. Association and Subjugation������������������������������������������������������� 225 3.3. Summary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 232 4. Armament in Contemporary Thinking����������������������������������������������� 232 4.1. Symbolisms attributed to Weapons������������������������������������������� 233 4.2. Rituals involving Weapons����������������������������������������������������������� 239 4.3. Weapons as a Mark of Identity���������������������������������������������������� 244 4.4. Summary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 249 5. Male Appreciation and Potency����������������������������������������������������������� 249 5.1. Physical Attributes�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 252 5.2. Names and Male Identity�������������������������������������������������������������� 258 5.3. Martiality as a Means to Self-Realisation��������������������������������� 261 5.4. Male Appreciation and the Proof of Strengh�������������������������� 267 5.5. Characterising Male Ideals����������������������������������������������������������� 273 5.6. Maintenance and Impairment of Male Worthiness�������������� 279 5.7. Summary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 288

contentsix 6. Religion in a World of Warriors����������������������������������������������������������� 288 6.1. Religion and Military Men���������������������������������������������������������� 289 6.2. Military men and the Christian Church���������������������������������� 300 6.3. Clergy and the Warrior����������������������������������������������������������������� 307 6.4. Summary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 312 7. Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 313 VI The World of War in Christian Tradition������������������������������������������������ 315 1. Spiritual Authority���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 315 1.1. Rex aeternus������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 316 1.2. Earthly Delegates��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 323 1.3. Summary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 329 2. The Holy Man – miles Christi��������������������������������������������������������������� 330 2.1. The Secular and the Spiritual Soldier��������������������������������������� 330 2.2. Warlike Saints��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 335 2.3. Summary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 340 3. The Spiritual Male���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 340 3.1. Beeing Male in a Spiritual Setting��������������������������������������������� 342 3.2. Spiritual Fighting��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 348 3.3. Summary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 355 4. Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 356 VII Final Analysis and Results������������������������������������������������������������������������� 359 Bibliography���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 375 Sources������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 375 Literature��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 385 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 411

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1. Burial findings from Alach, Germany 52 2. Front picture of the grave stone found in Niederdollendorf, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany 58 3. Signet ring bearing the inscription CHILDERICI REGIS, found in Tournai ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������60 4. Common features characterising military men����������������������������������� 172 5. Silver phalera depicting a victorious equestrian, possibly Christ ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 182 6. Round, silver garnet fibula depicting a horseman������������������������������� 184 7. Gold solidus bearing the name of Theudebert I (534–547/8)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 190 8. Lavish burial findings, from Planig, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 217 9. Silver phalera depicting an equestrian, possibly a saint����������������������235 10. Golden type-B bracteate, ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 238 11. Silver and bronze scabbard, decorated with a picture of a warrior with a wolf-mask, found in Gutenstein, Baden-Würtemberg, Germany������������������������������������������������������������������ 242 12. Also cover picture. Silver coin bearing the name of the major domus Ebroin ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 257 13. Luxury helmet found in a lavish burial in Planig, RheinlandPfalz, Germany�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������290 14. Back picture of the grave stone found in Niederdollendorf, showing a male figure, possibly Christ��������������������������������������������������� 298 15. Silver and bronze fibula, with long-haired portrait ���������������������������� 324 16. Bronze buckle of Ladoix-Serrigny, showing a bearded horseman, possibly Christ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 326 17. Depiction of Daniel or Christ on a bronze pressed-foil fibula����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 348 18. Military activities in fifth and sixth century Gaul�������������������������������� 369

PREFACE This book started as a doctoral dissertation which I worked on as a student of the University of Hamburg between 2008 and 2012. The subject of the study emerged from my master’s thesis, which I wrote on the characteristics and social significance of those who fought in sixth-century Gaul, a subject I chose as I could not find anything resembling a scientific monograph on the fighting part of Merovingian society, despite the undeniable prevalence of the military in early medieval western Europe. This was also when I found myself confronted by the thesis that the so-called barbarian invasions might not have been a major reason for the collapse of Roman rule in the West and the end of ancient society there. Although I could follow the reasoning with regard to the so-called invasions, I found it hard to imagine that the Roman world could have changed so drastically, and in less than a century, without any major external cause. As the explicit evidence had already been analysed comprehensively in many ways and as another examination thus would only allow reassessing the aims and reliability of their respective authors, I looked for another means of investigation that might enable me to understand how prevalent violence and insecurity might have been. Having been a student of Prof. Dr. Hans-Werner Goetz, I soon developed the idea of doing this by looking at contemporary ideas and perceptions of the world of war. It appeared most likely that the world of thought would be affected by a generally increased contact and familiarisation with armed violence, which is why the analysis of this aspect seemed a promising way to incorporate new evidence, not least with regard to the intensity of this contemporary experience. My most sincere thanks go to my tutor and supervisor, Prof. Dr. HansWerner Goetz, who has overseen the project with great interest and who has discussed it at every phase of the work done during regular talks. I want to thank him for this support, his advice, and his confidence during the whole time of the project. I also would like to thank Prof. Dr. Jürgen Sarnowsky for his support and advice during the last months of the completion of the thesis. The study would not have been possible without the financial support of the Luxembourgish Ministry of Education and the Fond National de Recherche, which has also contributed financially to the publication of the book. I would also like to thank Prof. Dr. Michel Margue from the University of Luxemburg for his kind support and

xiv

preface

interest in the study. This book would neither have been published without the support of my editor, Marcella Mulder, who has widely contributed to its completion. Very special thanks also go to the anonymous reader, who has not only improved the final manuscript with his advice, but who has also most kindly revised the language of the entire manuscript. Remaining errors, of course, are the sole responsibility of the author. The present investigation has benefitted from many discussions on related subjects, including papers held in the framework of conferences held in Leeds (2009, 2011 and 2013), Osnabrück and Frankfurt-amMain (2012), Nürnberg, Cambridge, Mainz, and Hamburg (2010), as well as in Luxemburg (2009). I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Gerhard Fingerlin from the University of Freiburg, Andreas Franzkowiak, Dr. Henri Gaillard de Semainville from the University of Bourgogne, Prof. Dr. Bernd Kluge from the Münzkabinett der Staatlichen Museen, as well as the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Moskau, the Staatliche Museen Berlin, the Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen in Mannheim, and the Thüringisches Landesamt, for their kind permission to reproduce pictures of artefacts that are discussed here as part of the present book. My very warm thanks go to my family, and most of all my mother, Marie-Anne Oth, who has allowed me to further my studies, for their support throughout the time of my doctoral studies. My most cordial thanks go to François Benduhn, who has continuously supported and advised me during all these years with his love and concern. I also would like to thank Bikkhü who, although he did not see this book completed, has largely contributed to it by his loving presence and pleasure for life. This book is dedicated to him. Berlin, May 2013

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS a. annum/year. AASS  Acta sanctorum, ed. J. Bolland and G. Henschen (Antwerpen/ Brussel/Paris, 1643–1870). Act. Aun. “Acta Sancti Aunemundi alias Dalfini episcopi,” ed. P. Perrier, AASS, Sept. VII (Antwerpen 1760), 744–6. Agath., Hist. Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum libri quinque: cum versione Latina et annotationibus, ed. B.G. Niebuhr, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae 3 (Bonn, 1828). Am. Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gesta, ed. J.C. Rolfe, The Loeb Classical Library 300/315/331 (London, 1935–40). Arta.  “Ad Artachin,” ed. F. Leo, Venanti Honori Clementiani Fortunati presbyteri Italici Opera poetica, MGH AA 4.1 (Berlin, 1881), 278–9. Aug. Augustinus of Hippo.  Civ. “De Civitate Dei,” ed. E. Hoffmann, Sancti Aurelii Avgustini episcopi opera, CSEL 40 (Vienna, 1899).  Faust.  “Contra Faustum Manichaeum,” ed. J. Zycha, Sancti Augustini de utilitate credendi, De duabus animabus, Contra fortunatum, Contra adimantum, Contra epistulam funda­ menti, Contra faustum, CSEL 25.1 (Vienna, 1891), 249–797. Aug., Res Augustus. Res gestae. Tatenbericht (Monumentum Ancyranum), ed. M. Giebel, 3rd edn. (Stuttgart, 2007). Aur., Caes. Aurelius Victor: Sectus Aurelius Victor. De Caesaribus, ed. F. Pichlmayr, Bibliotheca scriptorum graecorum et romanorum teubneriana (Stuttgart/Leipzig, 1993). Aus. Ausonius of Bordeaux.  Bis. Bissula, ed. K. Schenkel, D. Magni Ausonii Opuscula, MGH AA 5.2 (Berlin, 1883), 125–7.  Epigr. “Epigrammaton liber,” ed. K. Schenkel, D. Magni Ausonii Opuscula, MGH AA 5.2 (Berlin, 1883), 194–226.  Grat.  “Gratiarum actio dicta domino Gratiano Augusto,” ed. K. Schenkel, D. Magni Ausonii Opuscula, MGH AA 5.2 (Berlin, 1883), 19–30.  Mos. “Mosella,” ed. K. Schenkel, D. Magni Ausonii Opuscula, MGH AA 5.2 (Berlin, 1883), 81–97.

xvi

list of abbreviations

 Ordo “Ordo urbium nobilium,” ed. K. Schenkel, D. Magni Ausonii Opuscula, MGH AA 5.2 (Berlin, 1883), 98–103.  Prec. “Precatio consulis designati pridie kal. ian. fascibus sumptis,” ed. K. Schenkel, D. Magni Ausonii Opuscula, MGH AA 5.2 (Berlin, 1883), 17–19.  Nupt. “Cento nuptialis,” ed. K. Schenkel, D. Magni Ausonii Opuscula, MGH AA 5.2 (Berlin, 1883), 140–6. Avit. Avitus of Vienne.  Dial.  “Alcimi Ecdicii Aviti Viennensis episcopi dialogi cum Gundobado rege vel librorum contra arrianos reliquiae,” ed. R. Peiper, Alcimi Ecdicii Aviti. Opera quae supersunt, MGH AA 6.2 (Berlin, 1883), 1–15.  Epist. “Epistularum ad diversos libri tres,” ed. R. Peiper, Alcimi Ecdicii Aviti. Opera quae supersunt, MGH AA 6.2 (Berlin, 1883), 35–102.  Hom. “Alcimi Ecdicii Aviti Viennensis episcopi ex homiliarum libro,” ed. R. Peiper, Alcimi Ecdicii Aviti. Opera quae super­ sunt, MGH AA 6.2 (Berlin, 1883), 103–53. Baud., Rad. Baudonivia, Vita sanctae Radegundis, ed. B. Krusch, MGH SRM 2, 358–95. Bede, Ecb. The Venerable Bede, “Epistola ad Ecgbertum Episcopum,” in: Venerabilis Bedae opera historica minora, ed. J. Stevenson (London, 1841). c. chapter. ca. circa. Caes., Bell. Gaius Iulius Caesar: De bello Gallico, ed. M. Deissmann, 3rd edn (Stuttgart, 2003). Caes., Serm. Caesarius of Arles, Césaire d’Arles. Sermons au peuple, ed. M.-J. Delage, Sources Chrétiennes 175/243/330 (Paris, 1971/ 1986/1989). Capit. “Capitularia Merowingici,” ed. A. Boretius, in: Capitularia Regum Francorum, MGH LL 2.1 (Hanover, 1883), 1–23. Capit. Add. “Capitula legi salicae addita,” ed. K.A. Eckhardt, in: Pactus Legis Salicae, MGH LL 4.1 (Hanover, 1962), 237–275. Cass., Var.  “Epistulae Theodericianae variae,” ed. T. Mommsen, Cassiodori Senatoris variae, MGH AA 12 (Berlin, 1894), 10–392. cat. catalogue. CCSL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina. cf. compare to.



list of abbreviationsxvii

Chilp. Ym. King Chilperic, “Ymnus in solemnitate sancti Medardi episcopi,” in: U. Kindermann: König Chilperich als lateinischer Dichter, Sacris erudiri. A Journal on the Inheritance of Early and Medieval Christianity 41 (2002), 257–8. Chron. 452 “Chronica Gallica a CCCCLII,” ed. T. Mommsen, Chronica Minora Saec. IV, V, VI, VII, MGH AA 9.1 (Berlin, 1892), 646–62. Chron. Stirpis  “Catalogi regum Francorum quattuor. Chronologica regum francorum stirpis merowingicae,” ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison, Passiones vitaeque sactorum aevi Merovingici, MGH SRM 7 (Hanover/Leipzig, 1920), 479–84. Marcus Tullius Cicero Cic.  Div. “De Divinatione,” in: De senectute, de amicitia, de divina­ tione, ed. and transl. W.A. Falconer, The Loeb Classical Library 154 (London, 1971), 221–539.  Verr. “Orationes in Verrem,” in: Cicero. Reden gegen Verres V. Zweite Rede gegen C. Verres. Viertes Buch, ed. G. Krüger (Stuttgart, 1998). CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin, 1862ff.). Claud. Claudius Claudianus,  Get. “De bello Getico,” ed. and transl. M. Platnauer, Claudian, vol. 2, The Loeb Classical Library 136 (London, 1998), 124–72.  Ruf. “In Rufinum,” ed. and transl. M. Platnauer, Claudian, vol. 1, The Loeb Classical Library 135 (London, 1998), 24–97. col./cols. column/ columns. Col. Columban the Younger.  Epist. “Epistulae,” ed. G.S.M. Walker, Sancti Columbani Opera, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae (Dublin, 1970), 1–59.  Reg.  “Regula monachorum,” ed. G.S.M. Walker, Sancti Columbani Opera, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae (Dublin, 1970), 122–68. Conc. Concilium.  Aur. (year) “Concilium Aurelianense” [a. 511, a. 533, a. 538, a. 541, a. 549], ed. F. Maassen, Concilia aevi Merovingici, MGH LL 3.1 (Hanover, 1893), 1–14, 61–64, 72–112.  Av. “Concilium Avernense” [a. 535], ed. F. Maassen, Concilia aevi Merovingici, MGH LL 3.1 (Hanover, 1893), 66–71.

xviii

list of abbreviations

 Burd. “Concilium Burdegalense” [a. 663–675], ed. F. Maassen, Concilia aevi Merovingici, MGH LL 3.1 (Hanover, 1893), 215–17.  Epa. “Concilium Epaonense” [a. 517], ed. F. Maassen, Concilia aevi Merovingici, MGH LL 3.1 (Hanover, 1893), 15–30.  Lat. “Concilium Latunense” [a. 673–5], ed. F. Maassen, Concilia aevi Merovingici, MGH LL 3.1 (Hanover, 1893), 217–22.  Mat. “Concilium Matisconense” [a. 583], ed. F. Maassen, Concilia aevi Merovingici, MGH LL 3.1 (Hanover, 1893), 155–62.  Tur. “Concilium Turonense” [a. 567], ed. F. Maassen, Concilia aevi Merovingici, MGH LL 3.1 (Hanover, 1893), 121–36.  Ven. “Concilium Veneticum,” ed. C. Munier, Concilia Galliae 314–506, CCSL 148 (Turnholt, 1963), 150–8. Const. Extrav. “Constitutiones extravagantes,” ed. L.R. De Salis, Leges Burgundionum, MGH LL 2.1 (Hanover, 1892), 117–122. Const., Germ.  “ Vita Germani episcope Autissiodorensis auctore Constantio,” ed. W. Levision, Passiones Vitaeque Sanctorum aevi Merovingici cum supplemento et appen­ dice, MGH SRM 7 (Hanover/Leipzig, 1920), 225–283. Cont. “Continuationes,” ed. B. Krusch, Fredegarii et aliorum Chronica. Vitae Sanctorum, MGH SRM 2 (Hanover, 1888), 168–93. Cor. “Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians,” in: The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 3: The New Testament, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 206–33. CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. CTh.  Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitutionibus Sirmondianis et leges novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes, vol. I 2, ed. T. Mommsen and P.M. Meyer (Berlin, 1905). Cypr., Caes. Cyprian of Toulon, “Vita sancti Caesarii episcopi libri duo,” ed. B. Krusch, Passiones vitaeque sanctorum aevi Merovingici, MGH SRM 3, (Hanover, 1896), 457–501. Dado, Elig. “Dadonis Rothomagensis Episcopi. Vita Eligii episcopi Noviomagensis,” ed. B. Krusch, Passiones vitaeque sancto­ rum aevi Merovingici aevi, MGH SRM 4 (Hanover, 1902), 663–742. Dan. “The Book of Daniel,” in: The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 1: The Old Testament, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 968–87.



list of abbreviationsxix

De Gal. “De S. Galactorio Episcopo Lascurrensi et Martyre,” AASS July 27, vol. 6 (1731), 434–5. Desid., Epist. Epistulae Sancti Desiderii Cadurcensis, ed. D. Norberg, Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Studia Latina Stockholmiensia 4 (Uppsala, 1961). Dipl. “Diplomata regum francorum e stirpe merovingica,” in: T. Kölzer and C. Brühl (eds.), Die Urkunden der Merowinger, MGH DD 1 (Hanover, 2001). Dyn. Dynamius of Provence.  Max.  Dinamii Vita sancti Maximi episcopi Reiensis: Fausti Sermo de sancto Maximo episcopo et abbate, ed. S. Gennaro, Centro di Studi sull’ Antico Cristianesimo (Catania, 1966), 65–127.  Mar.  “Dynamii Patricii Vita sancti Marii,” ed. J.-P. Migne, Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum qui in VII saecili prima parte floruerunt opera omnia, PL 80 (Paris, 1863), cols. 25–32. ed./ed(s). edited by/editor(s). Einh., Karol. Einhardi vita Karoli Magni, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH SRG 25, (Hanover/Leipzig, 1911). Eph. “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians,” in: The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 3: The New Testament, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 239–44. Epist. Aus.  “Epistulae Austrasicae,” ed. W. Gundlach, Epistolae Merowingici et Karolini aevi, MGH EE 3.1 (Berlin, 1892), 110–53. Epist. Coll. “Epistolae aevi merowingici collectae,” ed. W. Gundlach, Epistolae Merowingici et Karolini aevi, MGH EE 3.1 (Berlin, 1892), 435–68. Euch. Eucherius of Lyons  Acaun. “Passio Acaunensium martyrum auctore Eucherio episcopo Lugdunensi,” ed. B. Krusch, Passiones vitaeque sancto­ rum aevi Merovingici, MGH SRM 3 (Hanover, 1896), 33–41.  Cont. “De contemptu mundi,” ed. S. Pricoco, Il rifiuto del mondo, Biblioteca patristica 16 (Florence, 1990).  Herem. “De Laude heremi,” ed. K. Wotke, S. Eucherii Lugdunemsis opera omnia, CSEL 31 (Vienna, 1894), 177–94.  Form. “Formulae spiritalis intellegentiae,” ed. K. Wotke, S. Eucherii Lugdunemsis opera omnia, CSEL 31 (Vienna, 1894), 3–62. Eug., Sev. Eugippii vita Sancti Severini, ed. H. Sauppe, MGH AA 1.2 (Berlin, 1877), 7–30.

xx

list of abbreviations

Exod. “The Second Book of Moses, called Exodus,” in: The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 1: The Old Testament, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 65–119. Ex. Thor.  “De excidio Thoringiae,” ed. F. Leo, Venanti Honori Clementiani Fortunati presbyteri Italici Opera poetica, MGH AA 4.1 (Berlin, 1881), 271–5. Faust. Faustus of Riez.  Epist. “Epistulae,” ed. A. Engelbrecht, Fausti Reiensis et Rurici opera, CSEL 21 (Prague, 1891), 161–219.  Grat. “De gratia libri duo,” ed. A. Engelbrecht, Fausti Reiensis et Rurici opera, CSEL 21 (Prague, 1891), 3–98. fn. footnote. Form. And.  “Formulae Andecavense,” ed. K. Zeumer, Formulae Merowingici et Karolini aevi, MGH LL 5 (Hanover, 1886), 4–25. Form. Marc. “Marculi Formulae,” ed. K. Zeumer, Formulae Merowingici et Karolini aevi, MGH LL 5 (Hanover, 1886), 36–106. Fort. Venantius Fortunatus.  Alb.  “Vita sancti Albini,” ed. B. Krusch, Venanti Honori Clementiani Fortunati presbyteri Itallica opera pedestria, MGH AA 4.2 (Berlin, 1885), 27–33.  Carm.  Venanti Honori Clementiani Fortunati presbyteri Italici Opera poetica, ed. F. Leo, MGH AA 4.1 (Berlin, 1881).  Germ.  “Vita sancti Germani,” ed. B. Krusch, Venanti Honori Clementiani Fortunati presbyteri Italici opera pedestria, MGH AA 4.2 (Berlin, 1885), 11–27.  Hil. “Liber de virtutibus sancti Hilarii,” ed. B. Krusch, Venanti Honori Clementiani Fortunati presbyteri Italici opera pedes­ tria, MGH AA 4.2 (Berlin, 1885), 7–11.  Marc.  “Vita sancti Marcelli,” ed. B. Krusch, Venanti Honori Clementiani Fortunati presbyteri Italici opera pedestria, MGH AA 4.2 (Berlin, 1885), 49–54.  Mart. “Vita sancti Martini,” ed. F. Leo, Venanti Honori Clementiani Fortunati presbyteri Italici Opera poetica, MGH AA 4.1 (Berlin, 1881), 293–370.  Med.  “Vita sancti Medardi,” ed. B. Krusch, Venanti Honori Clementiani Fortunati presbyteri Italici opera pedestria, MGH AA 4.2 (Berlin, 1885), 67–73.



list of abbreviationsxxi

 Pat. “Vita sancti Paterni,” ed. B. Krusch, Venanti Honori Clementiani Fortunati presbyteri Italici opera pedestria, MGH AA 4.2 (Berlin, 1885), 33–7.  Rad. “Vita sanctae Radegundis,” ed. B. Krusch, Venanti Honori Clementiani Fortunati presbyteri Italici opera pedestria, MGH AA 4.2 (Berlin, 1885), 38–49.  Sev. “Vita Severini,” ed. W. Levision, Passiones Vitaeque Sanctorum aevi Merovingici cum supplemento et appendice, MGH SRM 7 (Hanover/Leipzig, 1920), 206–24. Fred. “Chronicarum quae dicuntur Fredegarii Scholastici Libri IV,” ed. B. Krusch, Fredegarii et aliorum Chronica. Vitae Sanctorum, MGH SRM 2 (Hanover, 1888), 19–168. frg. fragment. Flod. “Flodoardi Historia Remensis ecclesiae,” ed. I. Heller and G. Waitz, Scriptorum tomo decimo tertio continentur, MGH Scriptorum 13 (Hanover, 1881), 409–599. Gal. “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians,” in: The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 3: The New Testament, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 233–8. Gen., Viri. “Gennadius de uiris inlustribus,” ed. C.A. Bernoulli, Hiero­ nymus und Gennadius. De viris inlustribus, Sammlungen ausgewählter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellen­ schriften 11 (Freiburg/Leipzig, 1895), 60–95. Gest. Dag. “Gesta Dagoberti I regis Franeorum,” ed. B. Krusch, Fredegarii et aliorum Chronica. Vitae Sanctorum, MGH SRM 2 (Hanover, 1888), 396–425. Greg. Gregory of Tours.  Conf. “Libri in gloria confessorum,” ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison, Gregorii Turonensis Opera. Miracula et opera omnia, MGH SRM 1.2 (Hanover, 1885), 744–820.  Mart. “Liber in gloria martyrum,” ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison, Gregorii Turonensis Opera. Miracula et opera omnia, MGH SRM 1.2 (Hanover, 1885), 484–561.  Hist.  Gregorii Episcopi Turonensis historiarum libri X, ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison, MGH SRM 1.1 (Hanover, 1951).  Jul.  “De passione et virtutibus sancti Iuliani Martyris,” ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison, Gregorii Turonensis Opera. Miracula et opera omnia, MGH SRM 1.2 (Hanover, 1885), 562–84.

xxii

list of abbreviations

 Virt. “De passione et virtutibus sancti sancti Martini episcopi,” ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison, Gregorii Turonensis Opera. Miracula et opera omnia, MGH SRM 1.2 (Hanover, 1885), 584–661.  Patr. “Liber vitae patrum opere Georgi Florenti Gregori Toronici,” ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison, Gregorii Turonensis Opera. Miracula et opera omnia, MGH SRM 1.2 (Hanover, 1885), 661–744. Hyd., Chron. “Hydatius, “Chronicle,” in: The Chronicle of Hydatius and the Consularia Constantinopolitana. Two Contemporary Accounts of the Final Years of the Roman Empire, ed. and transl. R. Burgess (Oxford, 1993). i.a. inter alia / amongst other (things). ibid. Ibidem, the same source. idem The same author. i.e. id est / that is. Isai. “The Book of the Prophet Isaiah,” in: The Bible. Authori­ zed King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 2. The Old Testament, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 765–826. Isid., Ety. Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi. Etymologiarum sive originum libri XX, 2 vols, ed. W. Lindsay, Scriptorum Classicorum. Bibliotheca Oxoniensis (London, 1911). Jerem. “The Book of the Prophet Jeremia,” in: The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 2: The Old Testa­ ment, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 827–97. John “The Gospel According to St Luke,” in: The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 3: The New Testa­ ment, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 70–114. Jon. Jonas of Bobbio  Col.  “Vita Columbani Abbatis Discipulorumque eius,” ed. B. Krusch, Passiones vitaeque sanctorum aevi Merovingici aevi, MGH SRM 4 (Hanover, 1902), 64–108.  Ved. “Vita Vedastis episcopi Atrebatensis prima,” ed. B. Krusch, Passiones vitaeque sanctorum aevi Merovingici, MGH SRM 3 (Hannover, 1896), 406–1. Jul., Ath. Flavius Claudius Julianus, “Letter to the Senate and People of Athens,” ed. and transl. W.C. Wright, The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 2, The Loeb Classical Library 29 (London/New York, 1913), 243–96.



list of abbreviationsxxiii

Jul., Wamb. “Historia Wambae regis auctore Iuliano episcopo Toletano,” ed. B. Krusch, Passiones vitaeque sactorum aevi Merovingici, MGH SRM 5 (Hannover/Leipzig, 1910), 501–35. Lamp. Ann. “Lamperti Annales,” ed. O. Holder-Egger, Lamperti mona­ chi Hersfeldensis Opera, MGH SRG 38 (Leipzig/Hanover, 1894), 1–304. Lat. Latin. Lex Alam. “Pactus Legis Alamannorum,” ed. K.A. Eckhardt, Leges ala­ mannorum, MGH Leges nationum germanicarum 5.1, 2nd edn (Hanover, 1966), 21–34. Lex Gund. “Liber Constitutionum sive lex Gundobada,” ed. L.R. De Salis, Leges Burgundionum, MGH LL 2.1 (Hanover, 1892), 29–116. Lex Hlo. “Lex Alamannorum a Hlothario constituta,” ed. J. Merkel, Leges Alamannorum, MGH LL 3 (Hanover, 1863), 41–79. Lex Rib. “Lex Ribuaria,” ed. F. Beyerle and R. Buchner, Leges natio­ num germanicarum, MGH LL 3.2 (Hanover, 1954). Lex Sal. Pactus legis Salicae, ed. K.A. Eckhardt, MGH LL 4.1 (Hanover, 1962). Lex. Sal. Add. “Capitula Legi salicae addita,” ed. K.A. Eckhardt, Pactus legis Salicae, MGH LL 4.1 (Hanover, 1962), 238–73. LHF “Liber Historiae Francorum,” ed. B. Krusch, Fredegarii et aliorum Chronica. Vitae Sanctorum, MGH SRM 2 (Hanover, 1888), 215–328. Liv.  Titus Livius. Ab urbe condita. Liber XXI, ed. and transl. U. Blank-Sangmeister (Stuttgart, 1999). Luke “The Gospel according to St Luke,” in: The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 3: The New Testament, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 70–114. Mam., Paneg. “Claudii Mamertini Gratiarum actio de consulatu suo Iuliano Imperatori,” ed. and transl. E. Galletier, Panégyriques Latins, vol. 3, Collection des universités de France. Les belles lettres (Paris, 1955), 15–44. Mar., Chron. Marii episcopi Aventicensis chronic a. CCCCLV-DLXXXI, Chronica Minora Saec. IV, V, VI, VII, ed. T. Mommsen, MGH AA 11.2 (Berlin/Munich, 1894), 232–9. Matt. “The Gospel According to St Matthew,” in: The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 3: The New Testament, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 3–44.

xxiv

list of abbreviations

Merob., Flavius Merobaudes.  Carm.  “Carmina,” ed. and transl. F.M. Clover, “Flavius Merobaudes: A Translation and Historical Commentary”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 61.1 (Philadelphia, 1971), 60–2.  Paneg.  “Panegyrici,” ed. and transl. F.M. Clover, “Flavius Merobaudes: A Translation and Historical Commentary”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 61.1 (Philadelphia, 1971), 62–8. MGH  Monumanta Germaniae Historica inde ab a. C. 500 usque ad a. 1500 (Hanover, 1826 ff.).  AA Scriptores, Auctores antiquissimi.  Capit. Capitularia regum Francorum.  Conc. Concilia.  EE Epistulae.  DD Diplomata regum francorum e stirpe merovingica.  LL Leges.  SRG Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum.  SRM Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum.  SS Scriptores. Micah “Micah,” in: The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 2: The Old Testament, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 1010–15. Nov. Val. Novellae Valentiniani, ed. Th. Mommsen and P. Krüger Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitutionibus Sirmondianis, vol. 1.2, (Berlin, 1905), 69–154. nr. number. Orient. “Orienti Carmina,” ed. R. Ellis, Poetae Christiani Minores, CSEL 16.1 (Vienna, 1888), 205–243. Origo Lango. “Origo gentis Langobardorum,” ed. G. Waitz, Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI-IX, MGH (Hanover, 1878), 1–6. Oros., Hist. Pauli Orosii presbyteri hispani Adversvs paganos histori­ arvm libri septem, ed. S. Havercamp, Universalist Historical Society (Toruń, 1857). Pac., Paneg. “Latini Pacati prepriani panegyricus Theododio Augusto dictus,” ed. E. Galletier, Panégyriques Latins, vol. 3, Collect­ ion des universités de France. Les belles lettres (Paris, 1955), 69–114. Paul., Epigr.  “Sancti Paulini Epigramma,” ed. C. Schenkl, Poetae Christiani Minores, CSEL 16.1 (Vienna, 1888), 503–8.



list of abbreviationsxxv

Paul. Paulinus of Nola.  Epist.  Sancti Pontii Meropii Paulini Nolani. Vol. 1: Epistulae, ed. W. von Hartel, CSEL 29 (Prague/Vienna, 1894).  Carm.  S. Pontii Meropii Paulini Nolani Opera. Vol. 2: Carmina, ed. W. De Hartel, CSEL 30 (Vienna, 1894). Paul., Euchar. “Paulini Pellaei Eucharisticos,” ed. W. Brandes, Poetae Christiani Minores, CSEL 16:1 (Vienna, 1888), 289–314. Paul., Hist. “Pauli historia Langobardorum,” ed. L. Bethmann and G. Waitz, Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI-IX, MGH (Hanover, 1878), 12–187. Pass. Leud. “Passiones Leudegarii prima,” ed. B. Krusch, Passiones vitaeque sactorum aevi Merovingici, MGH SRM 5 (Hannover/Leipzig, 1910), 282–322. Pass. Praei. “Passio Praeiecti episcopi et martyris Arverni,” ed. B. Krusch, Passiones vitaeque sactorum aevi Merovin­ gici, MGH SRM 5 (Hanover, 1910), 225–48. Pat., Hist. Velleius Paterculus. Historia Romana, ed. and transl. M. Giebel (Stuttgart, 1989). Peter “Epistles General of Peter,” in: The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 3: The New Testament, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 285–92. PL  Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina, ed. J.P. Migne, vols. 1–217 (Paris, 1844–55). PLRE  A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale, J. Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire.  1 Vol. 1: A.D. 260–395 (Cambridge, 1971).  2 Vol. 2: A.D. 395–527 (Cambridge, 1980).  3 Vol. 3: A.D. 527–641 (Cambridge, 1992). Poema “Carmen 1,” ed. W. De Hartel, S. Pontii Meropii Paulini Nolani opera, CSEL 30 (Vienna, 1894), 344–8. Procop., Got. Procopius, “Gothic War,” ed. and transl. H.B. Dewing, History of the Wars, The Loeb Classical Library 107/173/217 (Cambridge, Mass., 1919/1924/1928). Prosp., Prosper of Aquitaine.  Chron. “Prosperi Tironi epitoma chronicon,” in: Chronica Minora Saec. IV, V, VI, VII, ed. T. Mommsen, MGH AA 9.1 (Berlin, 1892), 385–499.  Carm.  “Carmen de providentia Divina,” ed. J.-P. Migne, Prosperi opera omnia, PL 51 (Paris, 1861), cols. 617–38.

xxvi

list of abbreviations

Prov. “The Proverbs,” in: The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 1: The Old Testament, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 723–50. Psal. “The Book of Psalms,” in: The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 1: The Old Testament, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 640–722. Quer. “Aulularia Sive Querolus: Theodosiani Aevi Comoedia,” ed. R. Peiper (Leipzig, 1875). Rom. “Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans,” in: The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 3: The New Testament, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 189–205. Rur., Epist.  “Rurici epistularum libri duo,” ed. A. Engelbrecht, Fausti Reiensis et Rurici opera, CSEL 21 (Prague, 1891), 351–442. Rut.  RutiliusNamatianus. De Reditu Suo, ed. J. Vessereau, F.J. Préchac, Collection des universités de France. Série latine 387 (Paris, 1961). Salv. Salvian of Marseilles.  Gub. “De Gubernatione Dei,” ed. K. Halm, Salviani presbyteri Massiliensis libri qui supersunt, MGH AA 1.1 (Berlin, 1877), 1–108.  Tim. “Timothei ad ecclesiam libri,” ed. K. Halm, Salviani presbyteri Massiliensis libri qui supersunt, MGH AA 1.1 (Berlin, 1877), 120–68. Samuel “The Books of Samuel,” in: The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 1: The Old Testament, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 330–406. Sen., Epist. L. Annaei Senecae. Ad Lucilium epistulae morales. Vol. 2: Libri XIV-XX, ed. L.D. Reynolds, Oxford Classical Texts 7 (Oxford, 1993). Sid. Sidonius Apollinaris.  Carm. “Gai Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii Carmina,” ed. C. Luetjohann, Gai Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii. Epistulae et Carmina, MGH AA 8 (Berlin, 1887), 173–264.  Epist.  “Gai Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii epistularum libri,” ed. C. Luetjohann, Gai Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii. Epistulae et Carmina, MGH AA 8 (Berlin, 1887), 1–172. St saint (as part of a name). Sulp. Sulpicius Severus.



list of abbreviationsxxvii

 Dial. “Dialogi,” ed. K. Halm, Sulpici Severi opera. Libri qui super­ sunt, CSEL 1 (Vienna, 1866), 152–216.  Epist. “Epistulae,” ed. K. Halm, Sulpici Severi opera. Libri qui super­ sunt, CSEL 1 (Vienna, 1866), 138–51.  Mart. “Vita sancti Martini episcopi,” in: Sulpici Severi opera. Libri qui supersunt, ed. K. Halm, CSEL 1 (Vienna, 1866), 109–37. Tac. Tacitus.  Germ.  Cornelius Tacitus. Germania, ed. M. Fuhrmann, 3rd edn (Stuttgart, 2002).  Hist.  P. Cornelius Tacitus. Historiae, ed. J. Borst, Sammlung Tusculum, 6th edn (Düsseldorf/Zürich, 2002).  An.  Die Annalen des Tacitus. Vol. 2: Buch XI-XVI, ed. A.A. Draeger (Leipzig, 1869). Thess. “Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians,” in: The Bible. Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Vol. 3: The New Testament, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford, 2008), 252–7. transl. translated by. Tyr., Chron.  “Willelmi Tyrensis Archiepiscopi Chronicon,” ed. R.B.C. Huygens, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 63 (Turnhout, 1986). Veg.  “P. Flavii Vegeti Renati viri illustri comitis epitoma rei militaris,” ed. and transl. F.L. Müller, Vegetius. Abriß des Militärwesens (Stuttgart, 1997), 28–230. Vinc., Com. “Commonitorium,” ed. R. Demeulenaere, Foebadi aginnen­ sis. Liber contra Arrianos, CCSL 64 (Turnhout, 1985), 125–231. Virg., Epit. “Epitomae ars Virgilii Maronis,” ed. B. Löfstedt, Virgilius Maro Grammaticus: Opera omnia, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (Munich/Leipzig, 2003), 103–244. Vit. Ani. “Vita Aniani episcopi Aurelianensis,” ed. B. Krusch, Passiones vitaeque sanctorum aevi Merovingici, MGH SRM 3 (Hanover, 1896), 108–17. Vit. Arn. “Vita sancti Arnulfi,” ed. B. Krusch, Fredegarii et aliorum Chronica. Vitae Sanctorum, MGH SRM 2 (Hanover, 1888), 432–46. Vit. Aud.  “Vita Audoini Episcopi Rotomagensis,” ed. B. Krusch, Passiones vitaeque sactorum aevi Merovingici, MGH SRM 5 (Hannover/Leipzig, 1910), 553–67.

xxviii

list of abbreviations

Vit. Austr. “Vita Austrigisili episcopi Biturgi,” ed. B. Krusch, Passiones vitaeque sanctorum aevi Merovingici aevi, MGH SRM 4 (Hanover, 1902), 191–200. Vit. Balt. Vita sanctae Balthildis, ed. B. Krusch, Fredegarii et aliorum chronica. Vitae sanctorum, MGH SRM 2 (Hanover, 1888), 482–508. Vit. Chroth. “Vita S. Chrothildis,” ed. B. Krusch, Fredegarii et aliorum chronica. Vitae sanctorum, MGH SRM 2 (Hanover, 1888), 342–8. Vit. Desid.  “Vita Desiderii Cadurcae urbis episcopi,” ed. B. Krusch, Passiones vitaeque sanctorum aevi Merovingici aevi, MGH SRM 4 (Hanover, 1902), 568–602. Vit. Ept. “Vita Eptadii presbyteri Cervidunensis,” ed. B. Krusch, in: Passiones vitaeque sanctorum aevi Merovingici, MGH SRM 3 (Hanover, 1896), 186–194. Vit. Genov.  “Vita Genovefae Virginis Parisiensis,” ed. B. Krusch, in: Passiones vitaeque sanctorum aevi Merovingici, MGH SRM 3 (Hanover, 1896), 215–238. Vit. Iur. “Vita Patrum Iurensium Romani, Lupicini, Eugendi,” ed. B. Krusch, in : Passiones vitaeque sanctorum aevi Merovingici, MGH SRM 3 (Hannover, 1896), 131–66. Vit. Land.  “Vita Landiberti episcopi Traiectensis vetustissima,” ed. B. Krusch, Passiones vitaeque sanctorum aevi Merovingici et antiquorum aliquot, MGH SRM 6 (Hanover/Leipzig, 1913), 353–384. Vit. Lup. “Vita Lupi episcopi Trecensis,” ed. B. Krusch, in: Passiones Vitaeque Sanctorum aevi Merovingici, MGH SRM 7 (Hanover/ Leipzig, 1920), 284–302. Vit. Maur. “Vita S. Maurilii episcopi et confessoris,” ed. J. Stilting, AASS September 4 (Antwerpen, 1757), cols. 72–6. Vit. Sad.  “Vita Sadalbergae abbatis Laudunensis,” ed. B. Krusch, Passiones vitaeque sactorum aevi Merovingici, MGH SRM 5 (Hannover/Leipzig, 1910), 49–66. vol. / vols. volume/volumes.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION After a first Alamannic encounter on the riverbanks of the Rhine in the year 354, a Roman army under the command of the emperor Constantius II managed to cross the river to face anew the same enemy, but soon received a request for peace. In his Res Gestae, the contemporary historian Ammianus Marcellinus described how the emperor thereupon stood on a tribune surrounded by a retinue of high officials to address the following words: ‘Let no one, I pray, be surprised, if after going through the toil of so long marches and getting together great quantities of supplies, I now, when approaching the abode of the savage, with my confidence in you leading the way, as if by a sudden change of plan have turned to milder designs. For each one of you, according to his rank and judgement, upon consideration will find it to be true, that the soldier in all instances, however strong and vigorous of body, regards and defends only himself and his own life. The commander, on the other hand, has manifold duties, since he aims at fairness to all; and being the guardian of other’s safety, he realises that the interests of the people cannot be separated from his own […]. The kings and peoples of the Alamanni, in dread of the rising progress of your glory, which fame, growing greatly, has spread abroad even among the dwellers in far off lands, through the envoys whom you see with bowed heads ask for peace and indulgence for past offences. This I, being cautious, prudent, and an advisor of what is expedient, think ought to be granted them (if I have your consent), for many reasons. First, to avoid the doubtful issue of war; then, that we may gain friends in place of enemies, as they promise; again, that without bloodshed we may tame their haughty fierceness, which is often destructive to the provinces; finally, bearing in mind this thought, that not only is the enemy vanquished who falls in battle, borne down by weight of arms and strength, but much more safely he who, while the trumpet is silent, of his own accord passes under the yoke and learns by experience that Romans lack neither courage against rebels nor mildness towards suppliants. […]’ No sooner had he finished speaking than the whole throng, fully in agreement with the emperor’s wish, praised his purpose and unanimously voted for peace.1 1 Nemo (quaeso) miretur, si post exsudatos labores itinerum longos, congestosque adfa­ tim commeatus, fiducia vestri ductante, barbaricos pagos adventans, velut mutato repente

2

chapter one

Two centuries later, the bishop Gregory of Tours accounted for a comparable situation dating to the year 556: When the Frankish King Chlothar I heard of a revolt of Saxons refusing to pay their yearly tribute, he collected an army and headed towards the insurgent’s territory. Again, the menaced tribe sent legates, and they claimed before the king: ‘It is not that we lack respect for you, […] nor are we refusing to pay the tribute which we have given to your brothers and nephews. Indeed, we will pay more, if you insist. What we want is this, that there should be peace, and that your army and our people should not be embroiled in bloody warfare.’ When he heard this, King Chlothar said to his men: ‘What these people say is good sense. We must not attack them, for that would be a sin against God.’ ‘We know what liars they are,’ answered his men, ‘for they never do what they have promised. We must attack them.’ A second time the Saxons sent to sue for peace, offering in return one half of all they possessed. Chlothar said to his men: ‘Hold back, I tell you, do not attack the Saxons, for if we do we shall incur the wrath of God.’ Still his men would not agree. A third time the Saxons came forward, offering all their clothes, their cattle and the whole of their property. ‘Take all this,’ they said, ‘with half of all the territory which we hold, only leave our wives and little children free and let there be no war between us.’ Once more the Franks would not agree. ‘Hold back, I tell you,’ said King Chlothar yet again, ‘and give up the idea of attacking them. There is no justice in what you are planning to do. You must not march into battle, for we shall be beaten if you do. If you insist upon advancing, then advance without me!’ The Franks were furious with Chlothar: they rushed at him, tore his tent to pieces, heaped insults upon him, dragged him out with great violence and swore that they would kill him if he refused to accompany them. When he saw how matters stood, King Chlothar marched against his will. The battle was joined, vast numbers of the Franks were killed by their adversaries, and so many men were slaughtered on both sides

consilio, adplacidiora deverti. Pro suo enim loco et animo, quisque vestrum reputans id inve­ niet verum, quod miles ubique, licet membris vigentibus firmius, se solum vitamque propriam circumspicit et defendit, imperator vero officiorum, dum aequ 10. is omnibus consulit […]. Arduos vestrae gloriae gradus, quos fama per plagarum quoque accolas extimarum diffun­ dit, excellenter accrescens, Alamannorum reges et populi formidantes, per oratores quos videtis, summissis cervicibus, concessionem praeteritorum poscunt et pacem. Quam ut cun­ ctator et cautus, utiliumque monitor, (si vestra voluntas adest) tribui debere censeo multa contemplans. Primo ut Martis ambigua declinentur, dein ut auxiliatores pro adversariis adsciscamus, quod pollicentur, tum autem ut incruenti mitigemus ferociae flatus, perniciosos saepe provinciis, postremo id reputantes, quod non ille hostis vincitur solus, qui cadit in acie, pondere armorum oppressus et virium, sed multo tutius etiam tuba tacente, sub iugum mit­ titur voluntarius, qui sentit expertus, nec fortitudinem in rebelles nec lenitatem in supplices animos abesse Romanis. […] Mox dicta finierat, multitudo omnis ad quae imperator voluit promptior, laudato consilio, consensit in pacem. Am. XIV 10.11–12. 14. 16. Text and transl. J.C. Rolfe (1935), 84–9. Reference note: original quotes are given in italic; quotes from secondary literature are given between quotation marks.

introduction3 that no one could count the bodies or even make a rough estimate of their number.2

Although the military leaders argued for peace in both cases, the attitude reported of the Roman soldiers was diametrically opposed to the procedure of the Frankish warriors. Comparing both reactions raises the question whether they reflect a changed perception of the waging of war and warfare.3 What had happened between these two incidents was nothing less than the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. The two-century-old Pax Romana4 had gradually faded out since the later Principate faced with increasing conflicts resulting from claims of power and territory fought by both non-Romans and Romans on imperial and adjacent territories, including incessant inroads conducted since the late second century by peoples known under designations such as the Marcomanni, Quadi, Lom­ bards, Sarmatians, Chatti, or Bastarnae, and subsequently Goths, Vandals, Heruli, and Gepids.5 At the end of these conflicts new realms emerged that were led by the same elite that had fought the majority of these wars.6 2 Non enim sumus contemptoris tui, et ea quae fratribus ac neputibus tuis reddere con­ suevimus non negamus, et maiora adhuc, si quaesieris, reddimus. Unum tantum exposcimus, ut sit pax, ne tuus exercitus et noster populus conlidatur’. Haec audiens Chlothacharius rex, ait suis: ‘Bene locuntur hii homines. Non incedamus super eos, ne forte peccemus in Deum’. At ille dixerunt: ‘Scimus enim eos mendacis nec omnio quod promiserint impleturus. Eamus super eos’. Rursum Saxones obtulerunt medietatem facultatis suae, pacem petentes. Et Chlotharius ait suis: ‘Dissistete, quaeso, ab his hominibus, ne super nos Dei ira concitetur’. Quod illi non adquieverunt. Rursum Saxones obtulerunt vestimenta, pecora vel omni corpus facultatis suae, dicentes: ‘Haec omnia tollite cum medietatem terrae nostrae, tantum uxoris et parvolus nostros relinquete liberos, et bellum inter nos non committatur’. Franci autem nec hoc adquiescere voluerunt. Quibus ait Chlothacharius rex: ‘Desistite, quaeso, desistite ab hac intentione. Verbum enim derictum non habemus; nolite ad bellum ire, in quo disperdamini. Tamen si abire volueritis, spontania voluntate ego non sequar’. Tunc illi ira commoti contra Chlotharium regem, super eum inruunt, et scindentes tenturium eius ipsumque convitiis exasperantes ac vi detrahentes, interficere voluerunt, si cum illis abire deferret. Haec videns Chlotharius, invitus abiit cum eis. At ille, inito certamine, maxima ab adversariis internitione caeduntur, tantaque ab utroque exercitu multitudo caecidit, ut nec aestimare nec numerare paenitus possit. Greg., Hist. 4.14, pp. 146–7. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 209–10. Cf. Greg., Hist. 4.49; Fred. 3.51. 3 Cf. Kortüm (1996), assuming that “[r]eagiert ein und derselbe Gruppe […] auf den gleichen Stimulus zu verschiedenen Zeiten in unterschiedlicher Weise, dann haben wir es mit einem Mentalitätswandel zu tun” (p. 30). The term ‘war’ refers here and subsequently to a state of hostility between two or more politically relevant parties disposed to kill the respective opponent, whereas the term ‘warfare’ is used to refer to armed conflicts fought between these parties. Cf. Kortüm (2010), 41–2; Halsall (2003, Warfare), 142. 4 See the nuanced assessment on the Pax Romana in Woolf (1993), 171–94. 5 See Pohl (2004), 25–9 for a comprehensive outline and further references. 6 See Harrison (2002), 289–300; Whittaker (1993), 277–302.

4

chapter one

It seems self-evident that constitutive political changes such as those just outlined have the potential to significantly affect a society. Looking at the time following the late fourth century, two major elements emerging since the Principate had the potential to be contributing factors to these changes: the rise and spread of Christianity and the end of the Roman peace. Whereas the former emerged most of all peaceably inside the Roman borders, the latter might have originated from inside and/or outside the Roman Empire. In view of the turbulent times that saw the end of Roman power in the West, warfare and the experience of military violence were potentially important factors. It neither seems far-fetched to presume that ideas and conceptions related to warfare and the world of thought of people involved in military activities were widely affected by related experiences. The aim of the present investigation is to analyse the contemporary perception of war and those who fought, to assess whether there have been notable transformations between the early fifth and late seventh centuries, and to appraise what these changes tell about the intensity of the contemporary experience of violence. The results should help in particular to retrace the gradual transformation of Roman civil society towards a world where the military had once more become crucial to most aspects of everyday life – as documented by the primordial importance attributed to fighting and those who fought throughout the Middle Ages, where the warrior represented the only politically relevant entity, alongside the cleric.7 Ancient thoughts, conceptions, and ideas on war and the world of thought of those who fought belong to a very young historical field of research. The majority of the publications on these subjects only date back to the past two decades and they are largely restricted to subjects such as ideas on the ideal man and conceptions related to male honour.8 The problem that underlies the subject of the present study, however, has been the focus of countless investigations: How did the late Roman world become medieval? This question has been largely discussed with regard to the nature, intensity, and character of the transformations that society underwent during and following the fall of Roman rule in the 7 Cf. Scharff (2005), 70–9. Those who fought remained the most relevant political group of medieval society, thought since the tenth century as being divided into ‘workers’, ‘prayers’, and ‘warriors’. See Fried (2008), 4; Prinz (1971). 8 See, for example Murray (2004); Studt (2003); Cooper/Leyser (2000); GradowiczPancer (1996); Hadley/Moore (1999); Haubrichs (1996); Althoff (1995) and (1994); Bullough (1994); Partner (1993).

introduction5 West.9 An essential question frequently raised in this context at least since E. Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–88)10 is whether these changes occurred in a cataclysmic set of events or whether they had taken place more slowly, as a gradual transformation of Roman society.11 More recently, historians have argued that the transformation of the Roman world was primarily characterised by continuity, not by late antique devastations provoked by barbarian invaders. This thesis goes back to historians like A. Dopsch, who was among the first to underline that the Roman world had primarily undergone a gradual transformation at the end of which it had become what is referred to as ‘medieval’,12 or H. Pirenne, who argued that what caused the birth of the medieval world were not the barbarian inroads, but the rise of Islam, which transformed the Mediterranean Sea into a ‘Muslim lake’ that subsequently became an obstacle for Christian trade and cultural exchange.13 This view has been carried to extremes more recently by J. Durliat, who suggests that genuinely Roman society, including Roman administration and the professionalism of the army paid by taxes, had remained intact until the collapse of the Carolingian realm.14 Although a majority of researchers would not agree with this latter suggestion, a majority do affirm that the barbarian invasions were not the prime reason for the empire’s fall.15 This implies that major elements of change such as the acculturation of barbarians into Roman society, the rise and spread of Christianity, the gradual militarisation of the frontier regions, or the barbarisation of the Roman army were not directly linked to the barbarian inroads and threat. The thesis of a Roman world that only gradually changed is advocated most prominently by P. Brown, accord­ ing  to whom there “were not perpetual, destructive raids.” He admits,   9 For a more detailed outline on past and current research, see Ando (2008), 31–60; Demandt/Goetz (2001), 205–37; Demandt (1984). See also the discussion in Kagan (1978), and the excerpts in Rosenwein/Little (1998), 5–104. 10 According to E. Gibbon (1776–1788), the three main factors that caused the fall of the Roman Empire were the rise of Christianity, the decadence of Roman society and the Germanic invasions. 11 See the discussion of the two most common points of view in Halsall (1999, Movers) classified in ‘movers’ and ‘shakers’. 12 Dopsch (1923), most explicitly p. 413; (1924), 546. 13 Pirenne (1937). For a critical discussion, see Hodges/Whitehouse (1998), 58–72. 14 Durliat (1993) and (1988). J. Durliat’s theory had been anteceded by the thesis of W. Goffart (1980), suggesting that barbarian soldiers serving in the Roman army received payment from taxes, not land. Both theories were intensely debated and criticised, see Wickham (1998), 45–57; Liebeschuetz (1997), 135–51. 15 See, for example Whittaker (1993), 280–1.

6

chapter one

however, that although “[t]he barbarian invasions did not destroy west Roman society […] they drastically altered the scale of life in the western provinces”, as the barbarian tribes had “entered a society that was not strong enough to hold them at bay, but not flexible enough to lead their conquerors captive by absorbing them into Roman life.”16 W. Goffart even suggested that: “What we call the barbarian invasions was primarily a drawing or pulling of foreigners into Roman service, a process sponsored, encouraged, and rewarded by Rome”,17 which means that, according to him, there was hardly any barbarian violence. More recently, the discussion on whether the calamity resulting from barbarian violence was a prime factor of the end of Roman rule in the West has been restarted, when B. Ward-Perkins argued, by referring to the archaeological evidence pointing to a harsh downfall of the quality of life of most inhabitants of the western Roman territories, that the Roman Empire had a fairly abrupt end.18 Simultaneously, P. Heather concluded that “[w]ithout the barbarians, there is not the slightest evidence that the western empire would have ceased to exist in the fifth century.”19 According to him, the West was lost to Rome as a consequence of barbarian violence that cut off the empire from its supplies in soldiers, food, and taxes.20 A majority of present-day historians, however, tend to seek a compromise between these two views. There is general agreement that neither the societal transformations that seemingly occurred before and after the fall of Roman rule in the West, nor the effects of military violence on those who experienced these troubled times, should be ignored. G. Halsall, for example, agrees with W. Goffart that “the barbarian migrations resulted from the Fall of Rome, not vice versa”21 but admits that in the West “Latin culture rapidly collapsed after 388 and stood no chance.”22 The research project on ‘The Transformation of the Roman World’ funded between 1993 and 1997 by the European Science Foundation has analysed the 16 Brown (1971), quoting from pp. 126 and 122. 17 Goffart (2008), 872. Similar: “[w]hen set in a fourth century perspective, what we call the Fall of the Western Roman Empire was an imaginative experiment that got a little out of hand” (Goffart 1980, 35). See also idem (2006), 236; (1989), 130. Comparable views can be found in Thompson (1982), 25. 18 Ward-Perkins (2005), particularly pp. 87–168. According to him, the Roman economy was in no decline before the end of the fourth century, see pp. 128 and 134. 19 Heather (2005), 449. J.B. Bury (1928, 160–1) already came to similar conclusions. 20 Heather (2005), 459 and 433–5. 21 Halsall (Movers, 1999), 145. Cf. Goffart (1989, 132). 22 Halsall (2005, Invasions), 55. See also ibid., 49.

introduction7 complexity of these processes that had produced a transformed Roman society that continuously changed until it had become ‘medieval’.23 In the words of T.F.X. Noble, reflecting on five years of work, they show that “[t]he Roman world […] was transformed or, perhaps, it provided the stable framework for its own transformation. The period from 300 to 900 evidences both change and continuity operating in still mysterious combinations.”24 The significance of military violence as a factor of change in the context of this gradual transformation, however, has not been analysed in further detail. This important aspect of the late Roman and early medieval world has almost exclusively been discussed with regard to the impact of the barbarian raids recorded in contemporary writings. The present study aiming at pursuing this question by means of an analysis of contemporary perceptions of the world of war and those who fought faces two major difficulties. The first emerges from the fact that the written sources were virtually all composed by members of the Church, whose interests lay more in religious than secular matters and who tended to emphasise pacifism.25 Consequently, this study, which primarily focusses on the secular part of society, is necessarily based on largely indirect testimony. Before using these sources, it will therefore be necessary to analyse the imagined world of their respective authors, and especially their particular attitudes towards the world of war. These analyses will help to establish how the information they conveyed by writing should be evaluated when focussing on contemporaries who are not able to speak for themselves. The second difficulty partly emanates from the first. As there is barely a single written testimony that originates from the pen of a member of the group whose imagined world should be the main area of focus, there is no benefit in studying a work as a whole. The extant sources are only able to provide isolated information, a fact that requires appreciation as such. As a consequence, and although it would be unwise to imply that all warriors shared the same ideas and expectations, it will not be possible to reconstruct their imagined world as a whole, but only scattered aspects that were part of it. Although the imagined world of men of the Church should not be understood as disconnected from secular imagination,26 the testimony of ecclesiastical authors does not necessarily reflect the ways military men saw the world. Furthermore, the 23 See the publications http://www.brill.nl/publications/transformation-roman-world. 24 Noble (1999), 266. See also the summary in Halsall (2007), 19–22. 25 See also the comments in Hen (1995), 207. 26 Similar Goetz (1998), 172–3.

8

chapter one

reader should bear in mind that any depiction contained in the written testimony referring to single persons or groups is first of all the product of the idea that a specific author had in regard to those he described, or how he intended to depict them. In most cases it will simply not be possible to come close to the subjective perception of a specific warrior. As most early medieval texts have a strong persuasive intention one may, nevertheless, act on the assumption that they would not have risked a loss in credibility by needlessly deviating too much from reality, as it was perceived by the majority of their audience. The method of investigation that is needed to answer these questions will thus have to differ to some extent from those suggested by leading historians doing research in the field of past ideas, imagination, and mentality. For the reasons just mentioned, it will hardly be possible to draw a complete ‘History of Mentality’ as outlined by J. Le Goff. Although “[e]very remain is a potential source for a student of mental history,”27 according to him, such a study requires a set of data that is neither extant from late Antiquity nor early medieval times. The available sources hardly contain enough reliable information on a large enough fraction of those who inhabited Gaul to allow assessing those (unconscious) ways of thinking and feeling that were specific to all members of this ancient society, or at least a specific group.28 H.-H. Kortüm, nevertheless, underlines that although mentality is never explicitly communicated or commented, it is still accessible to some extent by means of specific behavioural patterns and attitudes, even if the same are also affected by society, culture, tradition, and education.29 The sources available still barely allow a superficial investigation into collective concepts of imagination and interpretation,30 which is why the present study will necessarily be limited to an 27 Original: “Tout est source pour l’historien des mentalités. “Le Goff (1974), 85. The same is also true with individual, nonverbal emotions, which are also partly influenced by society: see Rosenwein (2001), 231. 28 See Le Goff (1974), 82–3. He assumes a temporarily quasi-static, palpable ‘mentality’, which can be substituted after a certain time, when another ‘appears’. Dinzelbacher (2006, 14) agrees that the term mentality designates thinking patters that are common to all members of a specific group. See also the compilation of definitions of ‘mentality’ in Neumann (2000), 637–641, and the discussions in Kortüm (1996), 15–16; Graus (1987), 9–48. For a general outline on the history of mentality as known from the French ‘École des annales’ founded by M. Bloch and L. Fèbvre, see Kortüm (1996), 13–24. See also Brinkervon-der-Heyde (2000), 65–67. 29 Kortüm (1996), 30. Similar Brinker-von-der-Heyde (2000): “Jeder kann die Frage nach seinem Glauben oder Nichtglauben, nach seiner politischen Haltung usw. beantworten, die Frage‚ ‘Welche Mentalität hast du’ kann dagegen keine Antwort erhalten” (p. 68). 30 See Kortüm (1996), pp. 17 and 25.

introduction9 analysis of different facets and isolated ideas of late antique and early medieval thinking. H.-W. Goetz has suggested another procedure to study past thinkingpatterns in the context of a ‘History of Conceptions’ (Germ. ‘Vorstellungsge­ schichte’). The idea is to limit the analysis to a very small but much more easily sizable group of historic personalities, i.e. the authors themselves.31 Restricting the investigation of the imagined world to people providing direct testimonies has the advantage that the risk of an inappropriate generalisation is largely reduced. By analysing their (direct) statements and formulations, it is actually possible to come much closer to their individuality and – by means of their subjective perception – to the period under investigation. Moreover, the fact that most authors are among those people whose biography is best known today allows evaluating single statements and opinions in consideration of the historic context, as well as their individual life and social status. Although, as aforementioned, direct evidence of people definable as military men is virtually lacking, this concept of a history of imagination will still be applicable, at least where an author deals with a subject that is relevant to this investigation. The aim can therefore only be to discover what the sources are able to tell, all by using the suggested methods, whereever possible. This means that, although it will not be possible to reconstruct some kind of collective mentality of late antique and early medieval military men, it should yet be attempted to isolate this group to a certain extent from the rest of Gallic society to come as close as possible to ideas that actually belonged to them. On the other hand, contemporary writing should be examined in regard to their authors’ general ideas and attitudes, in order to better evaluate their statements concerning military men. By investigating the significance and perception of armed violence, the world of war, and those who fought in the late and post-Roman world, the present investigation hopes to understand better the transformations the world underwent during these transitional centuries. The intention is not to re-investigate the question why the Roman Empire fell in the West, but to focus on the changes themselves by means of an analysis of contemporary ideas and concepts belonging or referring to the world of war and what they tell about life of those who experienced these tur­ bulent times. Where possible, an attempt will be made to draw further 31 Goetz (1979): “Eine ‘Vorstellungsgeschichte’ rekonstruiert nicht die Vergangenheit in ihrer Faktizität, sondern die Vergangenheit als die ‘verarbeitete Wirklichkeit des Zeitgenossen’” (p. 256). See also Le Goff (1974), 89.

10

chapter one

conclusions as to what the contemporary world of thought tells about the nature and intensity of the recorded upheavals, since the intensity of the experience of (military) violence is central to the question of whether the Roman world changed due to calamity or in a process of continuity. In order to avoid too much generalisation in a world that was much more characterised by regionalism than globalism, more by heterogeneity than homogeneity, this study is limited to the well-documented but complex case of Gaul and its adjacent territories, a region that had been heavily struck by military violence but soon became part of the most long-lasting barbarian kingdom, which produced a comparably large amount of written and archaeological evidence. The primary questions that will be of interest here are: To what extent did contemporary ideas and conceptions on war and those who fought change subsequent to the end of the Pax Romana? How could these alterations be explained from a modern perspective? What do they tell about the processes of change the world underwent in the context of a transformation of the Roman world subsequent to the end of peace? The results should also be considered in relation to our own society. Beyond this, the present study wants to suggest and test the benefits that may be gained from an analysis of ancient ideas and perceptions as a means to investigate a society in transformation, as this is inevitably accompanied by alterations in contemporary thinking. Looking at the changes that occurred in an ancient world of thought thus bears the potential to provide new insights into processes that generally remain uncommented in contemporary sources. Moreover, determining the shifting ways of perceiving the world allow getting hold of a new set of information that permit making further deductions as to the perceived intensity of comparable transformations, and sometimes draw further conclusions as to the dimension of external factors of change. As the ideas and concepts of every individual are shaped to a significant extent by his or her own environment, the present study begins with an investigation of late Roman and early medieval history and society in Gaul. The aim of the second chapter is to outline the extant sources, including both the written and archaeological evidence. The third chapter investigates contemporary ideas and attitudes on war and violence. In order to get hold of the significance of warlike elements in everyday life, it focusses on ideas mostly expressed by the clergy as well as those associated with the military. The fourth chapter investigates the central subject of the present study, which is the world of thought of the military. The last chapter focusses on the Christian world of thought.

introduction11 Note: In consideration of the long-term transformations of Roman society throughout Antiquity and the complexity of pacifistic and martial tendencies, the author has preferred to refrain from focusing too much on distinguishing Roman and barbarian/Germanic influences, as a comparative approach would carry the danger of erroneously associating the former with so-called civilised behaviour and the latter to more warlike attitudes and procedures.32 As the sixth and seventh century terminology does not allow defining who was regarded as a fighter, considering the fact that this group has undergone some significant changes throughout the centuries,33 and in order to avoid forcing modern concepts to ancient sources, it also appeared sensible not to postulate a restricted definition with regard to who should be called a soldier or warrior. For this reason, terms like ‘soldier’, ‘warrior’, or ‘military’ are used to refer to any secular man that the sources associate explicitly or implicitly with the use of weapons, although Roman military are generally called ‘soldiers’ and post-Roman fighters are rather called ‘warriors’. It should also be mentioned that, for a maximum of clarity, the term ‘History’ is given in capital letters to refer to writings belonging to the source genre ‘history’ (histo­ ria), just as the ‘Life’ (vita) and the ‘Passion’ (passio) refer to these specific types of written evidence. Comparably, the word ‘church’, which usually names an ecclesiastical building, refers to the institution as such when given in capital letters. The term ‘barbarian’ is consistently used as a neutral reference to non-Romans. Names have been anglicised, where possible. Where no reference is given with regard to the translations provided, they are those of the author. Full references are provided in the appendix.

32 A strict distinction between Romans and non-Romans appears inappropriate, not least considering the fact that the population of regions like northern Gaul was of CeltoGermanic provenance. Furthermore, the meaning of terms referring to non-Romans like francus changed throughout the centuries subsequent to the collapse of Roman rule in the West: see Goetz (2002), 133–150. See also the comments in Goetz (2003), 342–3. G. Scheibelreiter (1999) uses a similar procedure, by fact, as he assumes that both Romans and barbarians gradually became ‘barbarian’. I also agree with S. Esders (2007) suggesting in regards to a society characterised by a “Wertesystem von militärisch-kriegerischen Leitbildern” that “[d]iese funktionale Charakterisierung ist wichtiger als die ethnische Klassifizierung (‘germanisch’), welche ich für problematisch halte”: p. 60, n. 14. See also Theuws/Alkemade (2000), 401 and 446. For a recent and exhaustive discussion of the problem, see Fehr (2010). 33 See the first section of chapter four. See also the concerns expressed in Kortüm (2010), 27.

CHAPTER TWO

EARLY CHRISTIAN GAUL Regardless of a specific time or place, an individual’s ideas and his world of thought are shaped by factors such as his specific social and family background or his personal experiences, all of which are part of his personal lived reality. An individual’s own thinking, the society he lives in, and his daily experiences are thus closely interrelated. For this reason, no investigation of the first should be undertaken without considering the latter. For this reason, the following sections examine what is known about society in Gaul, and how it changed between late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages. As there is limited space, the following survey will not be able to be exhaustive and inevitably contains some generalisations.1 In order to limit it to what is relevant to the present study, the investigation will focus on four aspects closely linked to the world of war: major historic events, military structures, rulership, and the degree of societal militarisation. 1. From Late Roman to Merovingian Gaul At the end of the fourth century, the majority of the inhabitants of the western parts of the Roman Empire would not have believed that by the end of the lives of those just born, their home territories would be under the rule of people that until then either lived east of the Rhine in small settlements of huts, or were part of the Roman world because they had agreed to defend it in return for some recompense.2 Although the empire did face some major problems in the later fourth century, these difficulties to most contemporaries might not have appeared significantly different to those that had been overcome in earlier days. In the central parts of the Roman Empire, life remained comparatively peaceful until the first years of the fifth century. A late fourth-century composition by Ausonius of Bordeaux, known under the title Ordo urbium nobilium, depicts Gaul as 1 For more detailed studies on this and related subjects see the ‘Transformation of the Roman World’ series and the publications mentioned in the footnotes. 2 Cf. MacGeorge (2003), 1.

14

chapter two

a flourishing urban landscape characterised by its internationality and trade.3 Seemingly, people living at some distance from the Rhine and limes did not consider the threat caused by neighbouring barbarians too serious. According to the assessment of another contemporary, the Aquitanian Sulpicius Severus, “nothing was farther from the minds of the barbarians than an invasion.”4 Until 407, Gaul seems mostly to have been in a good state.5 The last major inroad from across the Rhine dated back a decade, according to the assessment of the historian H. Elton.6 In his De bello Getico, the Roman poet Claudian praised his military leader Stilicho and described his retreat from the Rhine in 401 in the following pan­egyric manner: Even the legions that faced the flaxen haired Sygambri, and those who held the Chatti and wild Cherusci in subjection hither turned their threatening arms, leaving the Rhine, whose garrison they had formed, defended by but one thing – the fear of Rome. Will any posterity credit the tale? Germania, once the home of peoples so proud and fierce that former emperors could scarce keep them in check with the whole weight of their armies, now offers herself so willing a follower of Stilicho’s guiding band that she neither attempts an invasion of the territory exposed to her attack by the removal of its frontier troops nor crosses the stream, too timid to approach an undefended bank.7

Although this might have been true for that specific year, the absence of a military presence in the frontier regions had already provoked enemy attacks. Ammianus Marcellinus records an assault by Franks from the Meuse region a few decades earlier in 357/8, and their subsequent plunder of the then undefended Roman territory.8 And, unlike the inhabitants of the central parts of the empire, people living in regions close to the borders, including the former imperial city of Trier, were alarmed by 3 Aus., Ordo ll. 28–34, 73–80, 98–168, pp. 99–103. 4 […] barbarus nihil minus quam de irruptione cogitare. Sulp., Mart. 18.2, p. 127. Transl. B.M. Peebles (1949), 127. 5 See Favez (1957), 82. 6 Elton (1992), 168. Elton (1992, 173) and MacGeorge (2003, 69) estimate that by 460, northern Gaul was no more under imperial control. See also Halsall (2005), 48. 7 Agmina quin etiam flavis obiecta Sygambris/quaeque domant Chattos inmansuetosque Cheruscos,/huc omnes vertere minas tutumque remotis/excubiis Thenum solo terrore reliquunt./ullane posteritas credet? Germania quondam/ illa ferox populis, quae vix instantibus olim/principibus tota poterat cum mole teneri,/iam sese placidam praebet Stilichonis habenis, /ut nec praesidiis nudato limite temptet/expositum calcare solum nec transeat amnem,/ incustoditam metuens attingere ripam. Claud., Get. ll. 419–29. Text and slightly altered transl. M. Platnauer (1998), 156–7. 8 Am. XVII 2.1–4.



early christian gaul15

rumours of oncoming barbarians.9 In these frontier regions of northwestern Gaul, minor inroads may have never ceased entirely since their conquest under the command of Julius Caesar.10 After the number of troops on the Rhine was reduced in the earlier second century, the Roman frontier had come under considerable pressure in the second half of the same, leading to the Marcomannic Wars. Although the border fortifications and troops were reinforced thereafter, Gaul was subsequently repeatedly threatened by barbarian assaults, inner instability, and the weakening of the local military through usurpation and rivalry.11 Scattered but fairly datable archaeological sites suggest that barbarians had entered the territories of northern Gaul around the year 275 and caused serious destruction.12 Border cities such as Cologne and Strasbourg suffered barbarian occupation in the early 360s,13 when a large number of civilians were enslaved.14 As a result of these and other troubles, Roman power in Gaul gradually weakened from the third century onwards. In addition, a succession of soldiers from within the Roman military revolted and unlawfully seized control. The uprising of Maternus around the year 186 left long-lasting riots in its wake.15 In the mid-fourth century, a plot instigated by a certain Dynamius provoked the usurpation of the infantry commander Silvanus.16 About the same time, usurpers such as Magnentius and Maximus gained control over Gaul for several years.17 The emperor Valentinian II himself was eliminated at Vienne in 392 by his own general count Arbogast, leaving the throne to the usurper Eugenius.18 In the early fifth century, the usurper Constantine III gained control over Britain and Gaul until defeated in 411.19 What is more, repeated unrest was provoked by a group known under the term bagaudae, a seemingly heterogeneous band that appeared several times between   9 See Sulp., Mart. 18.1. Cf. Aus., Ordo, ll. 28–34. 10 See Künzl (1993, 534), and the discussion in chapter four. See also Whittaker (1993), 278–9. 11 See Pohl (2004), 25–7; Demandt (1998), 32–3. The result was a growing feeling of insecurity in these regions, Petrikovits (1971), 178. 12 See Knight (2007, 21–2) discussing findings suggesting the late third century destructions of villae in Haccourt, Vodelée, and Echternach. 13 See Jul., Ath. 279.B; Am. XVI 3.1–2; Mam., Paneg., pp. 18–19. Around 40 cities were taken by Franks and Alamanni before Julian’s arrival in Gaul in 356. Demandt (1998), 72–3. 14 See Demandt (1998), 88. 15 See Thompson (1974), 306–10. 16 Am. XV 5.1–18. 17 See Demandt (1998), 196, with further details. 18 Chron. 452, a. 392. See also Croke (1976), 235–44. Cf. Demandt (1998), 108. 19 Demandt (1998), 196.

16

chapter two

283 and 437.20 These troubles reached their apex when large numbers of Alans, Suebi and Alamanni crossed the frozen Rhine in the winter of 406/7 and entered Roman territory.21 The trespassers pillaged and devastated the Rhine valley and the north-western cities of Gaul and western Germania, before heading west and southwards towards the central parts of the empire.22 Although, generally speaking, Gaul might have remained a comparably pleasant place, even after these major barbarian inroads – at least for many wealthier people23 – Roman authority in Gaul gradually weakened. Riots and other unrests, as those provoked by the so-called bagaudae, worsened in the course of the following decades. Roman officials such as the comes Gaudentius or even the prefect of Gaul, Exuperantius, were killed by members of the military.24 When the Armoricans revolted in the 440s, the military commander Aëtius decided to deal with the problem by allowing the Alans to subdue the region for him, not by sending his own troops.25 The Burgundians, on their part, arranged to take over the eastern territories of Gaul.26 North-western Gaul likewise gradually fell under barbarian rule.27 In the south, the Visigoths were tempted to expand their territory by means of attacks on cities such as Arles and Narbonne.28 The native Gallo-Roman inhabitants of these territories soon found themselves caught between rival military forces and tribes, and bands of wandering destitutes.29 Nor did the barbarian inroads cease. In the midfifth century, the Huns entered the territory of Gaul and devastated the countryside.30 Only through the combined force of Roman legions and local barbarians31 could a victory be achieved. At this time, according to a 20 See Chron. 452, a. 435, a. 437, a. 448. Salv., Gub. V 5.24–5; Whittaker (1993), 288; Drinkwater (1992), 208–17; Thompson (1974), 204–320. According to A. Demandt (1998, 277), the term bagaudae goes back to Celtic origins and may be translated with ‘fighter’. See also Quer. 1.2, ll. 22–6. 21 See Prosp., Chron. a. 406; Chron. 452, a. 408. See also Greg., Hist. 2.2. 22 According to P. Courcelle (1964), 82–3. 23 See Salv., Gub. VII 2; Sid., Epist. V 11.17, VIII 6.10–12. Cf. Gauthier (1994), 61. 24 Chron. 452, a. 425. 25 Const., Germ. 28. 26 Mar., Chron. a. 456.2; Chron. 452, a. 443. Cf. Demandt (1998), 125. According to H. Elton (1992, 170), Noricum was quiet after 431, the Burgundians having been peaceable after 437, and the Visigoths after 439, riots only occasionally being recorded from the northern borders during this time. 27 See Vit. Genov. 26. Cf. Whittaker (1993), 297. 28 Prosp., Chron. a. 425, a. 436. Cf. Demandt (1998), 125. 29 See for example Sid., Epist. III 4. 30 See Greg., Hist. 2.6–7; Greg., Mart. 12.  31 See Greg., Hist. 2.7. See also Hyd., Chron. a. 308. It is striking that the most contemporary account is also the least specific, see Chron. 452, a. 451.



early christian gaul17

contemporary chronicle, there was no province in Gaul without barbarian settlers.32 The second half of the fifth century was characterised by a gradual loss of Roman control over Gaul. The magister militum Aegidius, who had been able to maintain Roman rule in cities such as Arles and Lyon, finally established himself as a regional ruler in central-eastern Gaul. Later sources refer to his realm as the ‘Kingdom of Soissons’, a realm ruled by a Roman king.33 After his death, his son Syagrius succeeded him. However, he lost power two decades later when Frankish military men conquered and incorporated the territories under his rule into their own domains. By the end of the century, Gaul was divided into three major dominions: the Visigoths under King Alaric II in the south-west, the Burgundians under King Gundobad in the south-east, and the Franks under the Merovingian king Clovis I in the north. The Salian Franks had settled Toxandria, in north-western Gaul, since at least the early fourth century.34 They might have been the first barbarians living inside the Roman territory as a people, an early contact with the local population that might be one reason for the comparably good relation between them and the Roman inhabitants. At the turn of the sixth century, this circumstance may have also facilitated their king’s conversion to Catholic faith,35 a new situation that henceforward entailed the open support of the local ecclesiastical authorities of Gallo-Roman senatorial descent. Under their king Clovis, the Franks soon conquered the ‘Kingdom of Soissons’ north of the Loire, subdued the Alamanni in the south-east,36 and the heretic Visigoths settling since 418 in Aquitaine.37 Merovingian history of events is characterised by an impressive sequence of royal campaigns, enemy inroads, military assaults, pillages, and devastations, accompanied by competition, enmity, usurpation, and local to regional struggles for power.38 Following these victories, the Salian king cunningly managed to successfully play off the members of the remain­ ing  Ripuarian royal family, which resulted in the subjection of their territories.39 The Salian king Clovis’s reign ended with the successful 32 Chron. 452, a. 451. Cf. Merob., Paneg. 2, l. 19,. See also Sid., Epist. IV 17.2. 33 Greg., Hist. 2.12, 2.27. See also the discussion on the kingdom in James (1991), 67–77. 34 Am. XVII 8.3. 35 Greg., Hist. 2.31. 36 Ibid. 2.30. 37 Chron. 511, a. 507; Greg., Hist. 2.37. 38 See, for example Kaiser (2004), 15–44; Halsall (2003, Warfare), 231–3; Ewig/Nonn (2001). 39 Greg., Hist. 2.40–2.

18

chapter two

elimination of every potential royal rival from among the Franks.40 The last major extension of the Frankish territories was achieved by the king’s sons. They subsequently subjected the Burgundians, Thuringians, parts of northern Italy, Provence, and some cities in the southwest of Gaul.41 The campaigns of the following generations focused more on the expansion of their own lordship to the detriment of other Frankish kings,42 and on the combat of invading tribes including the Lombards43 and Alans,44 as well as the calming down of rebellions successively provoked by subdued peoples like the Bretons,45 Thuringians,46 and the tributary Saxons.47 The few attempts to gain new territory failed.48 What followed the period of territorial expansion may be subdivided into four major stages: civil war between the eastern and western reigns, Merovingian kings competing with the aristocracy, young kings predominated by the aristocracy, and the effective leadership of the Franks by the Pippinids and early Car­ olingians. Considering the time frame of the present study, the following sections will be limited to the first three. In 561 Chlothar I was the last surviving of the four sons of Clovis.49 The subsequent generation was primarily characterised by a long bellum civile50 fought between the ruling members of what would become known as the Austrasian and the Neustrian branches of the royal family. These hostilities had risen shortly after the premature death of the eldest of Chlothar I’s four sons, Charibert I, in 567. This new situation required a new partition of his father’s territory among his remaining sons.51 However, the premature death of the Visigothic princess Galswinth in 569/70 (the sister of King Sigibert I’s wife Brunhild)52 married to King Chilperic I, probably murdered at the instigation of the latter’s former wife Fredegund,53 apparently fuelled the Austrasian enmity. As Chilperic 40 See Greg., Hist. 2.27–42. 41 Ibid. 3.7. 21. 29. 32. 42 See for example ibid. 3.28, 4.16, 4.23, 4.30, 4.45, 4.47, 6.31, 7.13, 7.35, 7.37, 7.38. 43 Ibid. 4.41, 4.42, 4.44, 9.29, 10.3. 44 Ibid. 4.23, 4.29. 45 Ibid. 5.26, 9.18, 9.24, 10.9. 46 Ibid. 4.42. 47 Ibid. 4.10, 4.14. 48 See the successes by Theudebert I in Italy (Greg., Hist. 3.32), soon undone by Narses (ibid 4.9), and not re-established by Childebert II (ibid. 9.25), or Guntramn’s campaign against the Goths in Septimania (ibid. 8.30). See also Ewig (2001), 41. 49 Greg., Hist. 4.21. 50 Cf. ibid. 5.praef. 51 Ibid. 4.26. Charibert had been assigned Childebert’s kingdom, ibid. 4.22. 52 Ibid. 4.28; Fort., Carm. 6.5. 53 Cf. Greg., Hist. 4.28; Prinz (2001), 44.



early christian gaul19

I had been disadvantaged in the first territorial division,54 he insisted after 567 on being awarded some of the territories previously assigned to his half-brother Sigibert I. The hostilities resulted in 575 in the victory of Sigibert, who was subsequently murdered in Vitry – possibly again by the instigation of Fredegund.55 Chilperic, however, died in a comparable manner only nine years later in 584.56 Just as Sigibert before him, he left behind him a young son. This son Chlothar II was soon put under the guidance of the same uncle-king Guntramn of Burgundy who already took care of Sigibert’s son Childebert II.57 A rapprochement between the adult Childebert II and the same Guntramn, nevertheless, was only attempted after several plots had been made on the Merovingian throne by Austrasian aristocrats.58 The result was the Treaty of Andelot of 587, established between the two parties.59 The feud between the Neustrian king Chlothar II and Theudebert II and Theuderic II (the two sons of the Austrasian king Childebert II, who died unexpectedly in 596/7) was fought out in several battles60 resulting in the extinction of the Austrasian line,61 as the result of Theudebert’s II defeat in Toul and Zülpich in 612/362 and his brother’s subsequent death.63 In 614, just as previously in 558, a single Merovingian king with the name Chlothar emerged as the sole monarch. His strengthened position, however, was most of all to the result of the open support of the aristo­ cracy,64 which might have instigated the composition of the Edict of Paris (614), fixing some concessions and liberties to this nobility.65 After his death in 629/30,66 his eldest son Dagobert I took over a major part of the realm, leaving to his younger brother Charibert only the territories between the Loire and the Spanish borders.67 Life during the reigns of 54 He was the only son of Chlothar I and Aregund, a possible reason for disadvantaging him. Cf. Greg., Hist. 4.3. For further discussions, see Ewig (2001), 42. 55 Greg., Hist. 4.45, 4.47, 4.49–51. 56 Ibid. 6.46. 57 Ibid. 8.1, 8.31. Cf. ibid. 7.7, 8.18, 9.18. 58 See ibid. 6.24, 7.10. 7.14, 7.24, 7.27, 7.28, 7.30–38. 59 Ibid. 9.20. 60 Fred. 4.17, 4.20, 4.25, 4.26. 61 Ibid. 4.42. 62 Ibid. 4.37, 4.38. 63 Ibid. 4.39. 64 See ibid. 4.40, 4.41, 4.42. See also the comments in Hen (2007), 96. 65 See Capit. 9. Cf. Ewig (2001), 117–18; Esders (1997), 102–5. See also Murray (1994), 22–36. On Chlothar II’s position before the Austrasian nobility’s changeover, see Fred. 4.20. 66 Fred. 4.56; LHF 42. 67 Ibid. 4.57. Charibert died nine years after. Ibid. 4.67. On Dagobert, see also ibid. 4.47, 4.52, 4.53, 4.56, 4.57.

20

chapter two

both kings apparently was comparably peaceful inside the Merovingian borders, only threatened from the outside by Basques,68 Bretons,69 Thuringians,70 and especially the Slav realm newly founded by the Frankish merchant Samo.71 With the coming into power of Dagobert’s infant sons Clovis II72 and Sigibert III,73 the Merovingian realm, however, was divided once more, but this time between the territories of a Neustro-Burgundian and an Austrasian king. This division was mostly maintained until the end of the Merovingian dynasty.74 This last phase of Merovingian history, badly known due to only scarce sources, was shaped by the premature deaths of most kings following Dagobert I, entailing the rise in power of the upper aristocracy now competing for local, regional, and finally royal power.75 The enhanced position of the nobility towards the kings may be illustrated by the example of the maior domus Grimoald.76 After the death of King Sigibert III he had been able, according to an eighth-century source, to put his own son on to the throne and to send the king’s son Dagobert II to Ireland.77 The duces and especially the respective maiores domus were now among those who were most active politically. The best known example is Ebroin, the maior domus of Chlothar III and Theuderic III.78 At moments his position had been strong enough to allow him to install the king of his choice, as he did in the case of Theuderic III.79 His reign was most of all characterised by his finally successful struggle to maintain Burgundy under Neustrian influence, and this to the detriment of the resident aristocracy represented by men like Leudegar, the bishop of Autun.80 But although he had been able to defeat the Austrasians under the duces Pippin II and Martin in the battle at Bois-Royal-du-Fays in 678,81 his success ended abruptly with his death in 681.82 This was the moment where 68 Ibid. 4.54, 4.57, 4.78. 69 Ibid. 4.78. 70 Ibid. 4.87. 71 Ibid. 4.48, 4.68, 4.75, 4.77. Their realm dissolved shortly after the death of their king. See also Wallace-Hadrill (1975), 4; Bachrach (1972), 85–6. 72 Fred. 4.79; LHF 43; see also his disastrous portrait, ibid. 44. 73 Fred. 4.76; LHF 43. On Sigibert III, see also Fred. 4.75, 4.87; LHF 42. 74 Fred. 4.75–76. See also Ewig (2001), 142–3. 75 An earlier prophecy was fulfilled at the latest at this moment, see Fred. 3.12. 76 He had become maior domus under Sigibert III. Fred. 3.88. 77 LHF 43; cf. Chron. Stirpis. See also Becher (1994), 119–148; Ewig (2001), 145. 78 They were the sons of Clovis II and later kings of Neustria-Burgundy. LHF 44. 79 LHF 45. Cf. his depiction in Pass. Praei. 20, 26. 80 Leud. passim; LHF 45. Cf. Ewig (2001), 152–72. See also Fred. 4.90. 81 LHF 46; Cont. 3. 82 LHF 47; Cont. 4.



early christian gaul21

the Austrasians arose once more by defeating the Neustrians for the last time in Tertry. As a consequence of this victory, Pippin II was able to establish himself as the maior domus of the entire realm83 and effectively to put an end to direct Merovingian rule, making way to the reign of his own family, the (early) Carolingians. 2. Late Roman and Merovingian Military The external pressure imposed on the Roman borders before the fifth century in the form of small to large-scale hostilities resulted in the adaptation of military structures to cope with the problem. The first major reforms conducted in this context, with the intention of augmenting the number of soldiers and their military effectiveness, go back to Gallienus in the later third century. A generation later, Diocletian and his successors proceeded with major reorganisations, including first and foremost the establishment of a new mobile field army, the comitatenses. Its function was to fight back incoming enemies, without leaving the frontier lines undefended. They were now protected by re-organised border troops, the ripenses or limitanei. In the fifth century, these frontier soldiers might have been conceded pieces of land for tax-free farming, while still on duty. The supreme command of the Roman troops was dedicated to newly created military leaders, the magister equitum and magister peditum, who were responsible for the cavalry and infantry respectively, even though both were primarily called magister militum. The mobile field army was now supplemented by a new form of auxilia, which was mostly composed of non-Romans from the Rhineland.84 The number of these and other soldiers of barbarian descent, who were allowed to settle inside the Roman territory in return for military service, increased throughout the late Roman era. The majority was stationed along the Rhine and Danube frontiers.85 They either settled there with their families, as half-free laeti, or as ‘federates’, serving the empire under the command of their own native leader.86 The percentage of barbarians 83 LHF 48; Cont. 5. 84 For these and further details, see Southern (2007), 247–51; Dixon/Southern (2000); Demandt (1998), 224–33; Dietz (1993). See also Demandt (1980), 610. 85 See Pac., Pan. XXXII 3–5; Haynes (2001), 63–4; Demandt (1998), 236. See also Böhme (2008), 80; Pfahl/Reuter (1996), 133. 86 See Bachrach (2008), 171–6; Southern (2007), 259–60; Kaiser (2004), 14–15; Southern/ Dixon (2000), 69–72; Demandt (1998), 236–8. See also Liebeschuetz (1993), 266–74; Stickler (1993), 495–514; Whittaker (1993), 294–7.

22

chapter two

in the Roman army contined to grow until the fifth century, when their presence had become most perceptible through dress,87 armament, and a certain cultural influence primarily exerted on the imperial military, a phenomenon that is often characterised by modern historians as barbarisation.88 It also affected the local population. Over centuries of close neighbourship, (Gallo-)Romans and barbarians acculturated to the point that, in the later fifth century, both had become almost indiscernible. This circumstance has induced primarily archaeologists to speak of the emergence of a unique kind of ‘frontier society’ in this frontier area.89 In the light of what is known of the late Roman situation in the border regions of western Europe, a military presence must have been much more characteristic of life there than in any more central part of the empire.90 It was here that a majority of soldiers was stationed, and where large numbers of barbarians were settled, in return for military service. These soldiers were not only stationed in military camps, they apparently could also be accommodated inside civil settlements by being billeted in private houses.91 The presence of a military camp also attracted local inhabitants, settling nearby in small colonies called canabae or vici.92 The frontier military became progressively self-reproducing, as new members were preferentially recruited from this local population.93 Soon, laws even obliged sons of veterans to enrol into military service.94 In the fifth century, these regions were thus inhabited by a not insignificant number of soldier-families,95 which entailed a gradual militarisation of this local society.96 The gap between the inhabitants of the more central parts of the Roman Empire and those living in these frontier regions, of which many 87 See James (1999), 22. 88 Kaiser (2004), 14; Southern/Dixon (2000), 46–52; Demandt (1998), 239; Geary (1996), 13–14; 30–35; Stickler (1993), 497–9. See also James (1999), 23. It supposedly had a Roman­ ising effect in earlier years, Southern (2007), 77. I do not agree with Le Bohec (2002), 253. 89 See Brather (2008, Zusammenfassung), 433, and beneath. 90 Similar Elton (1992), 168. See also the reservations in Pfahl/Reuter (1996), 134. Cf. Demandt (1998), 224; Derks/Jefferis (1998), 45. 91 See Dixon/Southern (2000), 49 and 169–71. See also the controversial study Goffart (1980), and related discussions in Halsall (2010), 99–112, and Liebeschuetz (1997), 135–51. 92 Southern (2007), 78–9; Geary (1996), 25. 93 See Haensch (2001), 92 and 107. See also Watson (1969), 148; Wierschowski (1995), 215–16, n. 45. 94 See CTh. VII 22.1, VII 22.4, VII 22.7–11; Sulp., Mart. 2.5; Demandt (1998), 224; Geary (1996), 18. 95 See James (1999), 23; Pfahl/Reuter (1996), 133. 96 See Halsall (2009), 270–7. See also the comments in Pfahl/Reuter (1996), 140. See also the definition of a militarised society by E. James (1997), 19–24.



early christian gaul23

were in some regard connected to the military,97 increased as military engagement lost attractiveness. In late Antiquity, several laws were issued to reduce the minimum age of potential recruits,98 which suggests that enlisting the required number of soldiers must have become a real problem. The late fourth-century politician Claudius Mamertinus confirms in his panegyric that military service was unpopular.99 It is best documented by several laws aiming at keeping men fit for military service from mutilating themselves, as a means of avoiding enlistment.. This procedure was soon penalised with death.100 A stipulation of 381, however, suggests that these ordinances were not very successful. It proclaims that: If any person by the disgraceful amputation of his fingers should evade the use of arms, he shall not escape that service which he seeks to avoid, but he shall be branded with a stigma, and he shall perform military service imposed as a labour, since he declined it as an honour. The option shall be unalterably decreed for the provincials, who because of such audacity in those persons often suffer a shortage of the recruits whom they supply, that when recruits begin to demand from them in common at the time when the levy is being made, they may furnish two mutilated recruits for one whole one, by the direction of Your Eminence.101

And although unfree men had always been exempt from military service,102 a stipulation was published even before Alans, Suebi and Alamans had crossed the Rhine in winter 406/7 to determined that: In the matter of defence against hostile attacks, we order that consideration be given not only to the legal status of soldiers, but also to their physical strength. Although We believe that freeborn persons are aroused by love of country, We exhort slaves also, by the authority of this edict, that as soon as possible they shall offer themselves for the labours of war, and if they receive their arms as men fit for military service, they shall obtain

  97 See also Dixon/Southern (2000), 175; James (1999), 21.   98 CTh. VII 13.1, VII 22.4.   99 Mam., Paneg. 20.1. See also Southern (2007), 257; Knight (2007), 9; Dixon/Southern (2000), 176–7; Demandt (1998), 234; Wierschowski (1995), 237–8. Cf. James (1999), 15. 100 See for example CTh. VII 13.4–5, VII 13.10, VII 22.1; Am. XV 12.3. See also Southern (2007), 258; Demandt (1998), 234–5; Wierschowski (1995), 221–7; 238–9. 101 Qui spurea amputatione digiti usum declinat armorum, non evadat illa quae vitat, sed insignitus macula ferat inpositum militiae laborem qui declinaverit dignitatem. Ipsis quin etiam provincialibus, qui ex horum ausis iuniorum saepe patiuntur penuriam praebendorum, haec optio inmobilis decernatur, ut tempore dilectus agitandi, ubi conmune coeperint conveniri, duos mutilos iuniores pro uno integro eminentiae tuae dispositionibus offerant. CTh. VII 13.10, p. 338. Transl. C. Pharr (2001), 172. 102 See CTh. VII 13.8, VII 13.11.

24

chapter two the reward of freeborn, and they shall also receive two solidi each for travel money.103

The recurrent repetition of these laws and their adaptation to current needs leave no doubts that attempts to sidestep military service must have been quite widespread, even if L. Wierschowski is certainly right to underline that it is impossible to estimate the exact frequency.104 A certain unwillingness to engage into military service is also confirmed by the fact that landowners apparently preferred to pay a tax specially levied to remunerate soldiers, as this exempted them from the need to set up a certain number of recruits themselves.105 The fact that, simultaneously, large numbers of barbarians were encouraged to enrol,106 thus also was a neces­sary response to a Roman unwillingness to engage into military service themselves. Post-Roman rulers, like the Merovingian kings, had been part of the Roman military until its gradual collapse in the course of the fifth century. This is one reason why it is difficult to tell when exactly the Roman army of Gaul merged to become ‘Merovingian’. Several early medieval features had already been part of the Roman military structures.107 Although the Roman army had lost a majority of its organisational features by the end of the fifth century, there were Roman soldiers in Gaul until the end of the century.108 This is the military body that the Merovingian king Clovis I, who was also the civil governor and military commander of the province Belgica II,109 took over when he became the sole ruler over large parts of Gaul. This passage from Roman to Merovingian military thus was certainly characterised first and foremost by transition, not caesura. The differences between these two military organisations, nevertheless, were not insignificant. 103 Contra hostiles impetus non solas iubemus personas considerari, sed vires, et licet ingenuos amore patriae credamus incitari, servos etiam huius auctoritate edicti exhortamur, ut quamprimum se bellicis sudoribus offerant, praemium libertatis, si apti ad militiam arma susceperint, pulveratici etiam nomine binos solidos accepturi. CTh.VII 13.16, p. 340. Transl. C. Pharr (2001), 172–3. For further attempts to enrol more recuits, see CTh. VII 1.10, VII 15.1. 104 Wierschowski (1995), 226. 105 See Am. XIX 11,7, XXXI 4,4. See also Bachrach (2008), 169–170; Southern (2007), 257–8; Demandt (1998), 236; Liebeschuetz (1993), 274; Günther (1977), 316. On the pay of soldiers in late Roman times, see Tomlin (2000), 172. 106 See Aus., Prec. ll. 29–31; Pac., Paneg. 12.3, 32.3–5; Sid., Carm. 7, ll. 246–50. See also Bulitta/Ebel (2001), 342; Geary (1996), 30–1; Liebeschuetz (1993), 274. 107 See also Dixon/Southern (2000), 180; Hendy (1988), 61. Cf. Seillier (1993), 189. 108 See Eug., Sev. 20.1–2; Procop., Got. 5.12. 109 Epist. Aus. 2.



early christian gaul25

The Merovingian military is much less well known than the Roman army. Its composition, professionalism, and conscription remain issues for debate due to only scarce evidence. What is known is that the Merovingian military was much less structured than the Roman army. Followings seem to have been an important feature of this fighting body.110 First and foremost, however, there is no evidence for what could be called a professional army, meaning that the Frankish military did not enrol its fighters for a fixed duration and pay.111 The only form of remuneration that is more clearly connected to an individual’s participation in a military campaign was booty, which was gathered in the course of virtually every military expedition.112 The raiding of goods from the native population likewise seems to have become a most common means of victualling a host on campaign, even though more sophisticated strategies are occasionally mentioned.113 Military forces, themselves, seemingly were most of all convened ad hoc, and only for a specific purpose. This was done either by the king himself or by his local representatives, mostly the comes or the dux.114 One feature the Roman and Merovingian military had in common was the very mixed origin of its members. Alongside Franks and Romans115 we find Alamanni, Armoricans, Bretons, Burgundians, Goths, Saxons, Taïfals, and Thuringians.116 The military structures were nearly as heterogeneous. Troops levied in the north and east of the realm differed from the majority of those south of the Loire in regard to their size and command. Those collected in the south-east and the less Romanised regions were generally 110 See, for example Greg., Hist. 3.14, 9.9. 111 Halsall (2003, Warfare), 69; Weidemann (1982), 268; Zöllner (1970), 153; Bodmer (1957), 108. See also Hendy (1988), 72 W. Pohl (2997), 19–20. Cf. Durliat (1993), 34–5; (1990), 126–7. See also, however, ‘Aliquantulum solidos tuae instantiae locum accipiens militari; parum servus tuum argentum habeo […]’. Fred.. 3.11, p. 96. 112 See Greg., Hist. 4.48, 4.49, 6.31, 7.28, 7.35; Greg., Jul. 13; Greg., Patr. 8.11; Fred. 3.4, 3.7. See also Kleinen (2007), 94–5; Bulitta/Ebel (2001), 337; Dixon/Southern (2000), 172–5; Scheibelreiter (1999), 301–2; Zöllner (1970), 153; Bodmer (1957), 108. 113 Weidemann (1982), 270–1; Bodmer (1957), 108. A rare mention of a more sophisticated strategy is praecepit, nisi omnia de pauperum coniectures, Greg., Hist. 6.45, p. 318. 114 See Greg., Hist. 4.30, 4.50, 6.12, 6.19, 6.31, 6.50, 7.24, 8.30. Weidemann (1982), 246–8; Bachrach (1972), 67. See also Greg., Hist. 9.7; Fort., Carm. 7.25, 10.16; Sprandel (1957), 48–58. 115 Greg., Hist. 2.37; Procop., Got. 5.12; Kaiser (2004), 18–19; Scheibelreiter (1999), 300–1; Wieczorek (1997, Kirche), 353–4; Weidemann (1982), 150–1. See also Avit., Epist. 24. 116 Alamanni (Greg., Hist. 2.30, 3.32; Agath. 1.6–7), Armoricans (Procop., Got. 5.12), Bretons (Greg., Hist. 4.4, 5.26, 10.9; Dado, Elig. 1.13), Burgundians (Greg., Hist. 4.42, 8.30; Greg., Patr. 8.9), Goths (Greg., Hist. 4.26, 4.51), Saxons (ibid. 4.42, 5.26, 7.3, 8.18, 10.9, 10.22; Mar., Chron. a. 560), Taïfals (Greg., Hist. 4.18, 5.7; Greg., Patr. 15.1), Thuringians (Greg., Hist. 5.12). See also Bachrach (1972), 3–35.

26

chapter two

levied at a regional scale under the command of a dux or patricius, whereas troops collected in more Romanised regions were rather small hosts levied at the scale of a civitas. They were generally commanded by a comes.117 Since the second half of the sixth century, these local levies appeared most frequently in connection with small-scale conflicts,118 especially when their local region was threatened.119 As B.S. Bachrach already established, “[n]one of the city levies were used outside of Gaul”. However, they could be appointed for campaigns in an area of operation that was even slightly above the distance 300 miles assessed by the latter.120 Men of Saintes and Bourges, for example, had been obliged to join a royal host that headed southwards to attack Visigothic Septimania,121 and some churchmen of the same region of Bourges were penalised for having failed to join their king’s campaign against the usurper Gundovald in St-Bertrand-de-Comminges, which was 340 miles to the south.122 In the seventh century, these hosts were increasingly extended by the retinues of bishops and other high-ranking men.123 The written evidence mentions two occasions where members of the Church had to pay a fine, termed bannus, for refusing to join a comparable undertaking.124 The fact that even clerics were requested to join a military campaign suggests that every man fit for military service was expected to follow the call to take up arms.125 Caesarius of Arles’s reference in one of his sermons to a possible punishment a deserting warrior could expect126 supports this assumption. On the other hand, the fact that some men of Tours reportedly joined a campaign to St-Bertrand-deComminges only because they had hoped for booty127 indicates that, at least in this specific case, they could not have been officially obliged to do so. This is unexpected, as they must have sworn fidelity to the same king who also led this same campaign.128 This is not the only indication that 117 See Greg., Hist. 8.30. See also ibid. 4.30, 4.42, 4.44–45, 4.49–50, 5.13, 7.34–5, 8.18, 8.30, 8.44, 9.25, 10.3, 10.9; Weidemann (1982), 238–249; Bachrach (1972), 66–7 and 88–9. 118 See Greg., Hist. 4.51, 5.3, 5.4, 5.26, 6.12, 6.31, 7.12, 7.13, 7.24. 119 See Greg., Hist. 3.13, 4.23, 4.30, 4.45, 4.47, 5.3, 5.13, 5.14, 5.24, 6.12, 6.31, 7.2, 7.12, 7.13, 7.24, 7.27, 10.5; Greg., Patr. 4.2, 5.2. See also Bachrach (2008), 177; Reuter (1997), 34. 120 Cf. Bachrach (1972), 68. 121 Greg., Hist. 8.30. For other long distance campaigns, see ibid. 4.30, 6.26, 7.28, 9.31. 122 Greg., Hist. 7.42. On Gundovald, see also Zuckerman (1999); Bachrach (1994). 123 See, for example Fred. 4.90. 124 Greg., Hist. 5.26, 7.42. See similar attempts of the late fourth century, ibid. 1.41. 125 Cf. earlier thesis of legal compulsory military service Conrad (1962), 109; Fehr (1914). 126 Caes., Sermo 43.7. 127 Greg., Hist. 7.28. 128 Ibid. 7.12, 7.24.



early christian gaul27

not every man “who could hurl a stone or swing a club” was obliged to serve at the same time, as B.S. Bachrach had assumed.129 This rather suggests that there must have been more specific regulations, which defined who had to join a comparable undertaking and who did not.130 One of the Formularies of Angers leads to the same conclusion. It deals with a father rewarding his son with his own property, and this because: […] you have been seen to serve us faithfully in all things and in every way, and have endured on our account many hardships and injuries in various places, and went in my place to fight the Bretons and Gascons in the service of [our] lords.131

Unfortunately, it does not specify why the father was required to participate in this military undertaking, and why his son was not, nor under what terms a third person was allowed to do so instead of another. B.S. Bachrach believes that these ad hoc assembled local levies or ‘parttime armies’ were supplemented by a ‘standing force’,132 composed of a large variety of armed royal servants with different status and functions, among them laeti, milites, custodes and centenarii.133 With the exception of the custodes, however, the sources do not confirm that these groups could have constituted any kind of permanent armed body. The only Merovingian source that uses the term laeti is the Salian Law.134 However, it does not associate them with any sort of armed or military service. The same laws also define the centenarii, who must have represented some sort of local judges with police functions.135 But there is no indication that they could have composed something like a permanent military body.136 Finally, as will be discussed in the fifth chapter, the term miles, which primarily refers to the Roman soldier,137 is only used in the Merovingian sources to refer to men in charge of the supervision and execution of 129 Bachrach (1972), 71. Cf. ibid. 68. 130 Cf. the military organisation of the Suebi in Caes., Bell. IV 1.3–6. 131 Dum in omnibus et per omnia et super totum nobis fidiliter servire videras, multas penurias et iniurias per devera loca pro nostra necessitate successisti, et in utilitate domnorum partibus Bruttanici seu Wasconici austiliter ordine ad specie mea fuisti. Form. And. 37, p. 16. Transl. A. Rio (2008), 78. Referring possibly to Greg., Hist. 5.29 or 10.9. 132 Bachrach (1972), 71. 133 Bachrach (1972), 71–2. This thesis was adopted by Nicholson (2004), 40; Harrison (2002), 293; Durliat (1990), 126. Cf. also Halsall (2003, Warfare), 48, not supported by Greg., Hist. 5.26. Whitby (2000, 288) argues against the thesis of a standing force. 134 Lex Sal. 26.1, 13.7, 35.5, 42.4, 50.1. See also Am. XX 8.13; XXI 13.16; Kaiser (2004), 14; Demandt (1998), 284–5; Geary (1996), 31–2. Cf., nevertheless, Am. XVI 11.4. 135 See Lex Sal. 44.1; Capit. 7. See also Dado, Elig. 2.61. 136 Cf. Weidemann (1993), 547–9; Murray (1986), 792–7. 137 Still in Francus ego cives, Romanus miles in armis. CIL 3.3567.

28

chapter two

prisoners.138 The term custos at least refers to diverse guards that could take care of buildings, especially churches, the entrance to a civitas, and even a king, and thus could indeed have represented some sort of a permanent service.139 However, it would still be misleading to call them a standing force. Likewise problematic is the assumption made by G. Halsall that the epithet saxo may refer to some kind of mercenary status, which is not supported by the evidence.140 The Saxons have always been much more a threat than an ally,141 and the few mentions of Saxons levied by a Merovingian king, leading a Merovingian host as dux, or even provi­ ding  young men fit for military service as hostage, are rare and rather exceptional.142 The only group that may be regarded as some kind of permanent military body, if any, is the armed host of retainers composed of men closely connected to the court, among which many had sworn fidelity to the king. Included in this group are the antrustiones, the leudes, and the Franci, as well as the conviva regis and the pueri regis, of which all, or at least some, were included in the gens armata, a term which is only mentioned by the poet Venantius Fortunatus.143 The word leudes/leodes designates military men particularly important to the royal power and bonded to the king by a sacramentum, an oath.144 But it remains unclear in how far they were identical to the antrustiones, which the legal sources also describe as qui in truste dominica fuerit,145 and who were also bound to the king by an oath of allegiance.146 The third term, Franci, primarily designated the Franks in an ethnic sense.147 However, it was also used to identify a much more restricted group of people, with an equally high position in relation to the royal family. The sources do not mention any oath in reference to 138 On B.S. Bachrach’s thesis of Merovingian garrisons, see Weidemann (1982), 268. 139 Cf. Greg., Hist. 1.21, 2.7, 2.13, 3.32, 4.12, 4.13, 5.3, 5.49, 6.19, 6.36, 7.18, 7.29, 8.12, 8.30, 8.31, 8.40, 10.15. 140 Halsall (2003, Warfare), 111–12. Similar Bachrach (2008), 178–80; (1972), 71. 141 See Am. XXVIII 2.12, XXVIII 5.1, XXX 7.8; Mar., Chron. a. 555, a. 556; Greg., Hist. 4.10, 4.14, 4.16, 4.42; Fort., Carm. 3.9, ll. 103–4, 7.7, ll. 49–50; Fred. 3.51, 3.52, 3.68, 4.74; Gest. Dag. 1, 14. The only more positive picture of the Saxons neither associated them with the military. Dado, Elig. 1.10. 142 Fred. 4.38 (levied), Greg., Hist. 8. 18; Fred. 4.78 (duces); Sid., Epist. VIII 6.13; Greg., Hist. 2.19 (hostages). G. Halsall refers to Jul., Wamb. 25; Greg., Hist. 7.3, 7.46, 8.18, 10.22. 143 Fort., Carm. 6.5, l. 241. Eckhardt (1976, 34–8) identifies them as antrustiones. 144 This importance is best documented in Greg., Hist. 2.42, 3.23, 8.9, 9.20; Cap. 4.1; Fred. 4.58. On this term, see Von Olberg (1987), 416–18; (1981), 91–106. Doepsch (1926, 35–7) was the first to argue that this term does not refer to all free men. 145 Lex Sal. 41.5, 42.1–2, 63.2; Cap. 7.praef. See also Schmidt-Wiegand (1972), 231–2. 146 Form. Marc. 1.18. Cf. also Bachrach (2008), 180–3, although unconvincing. 147 See, for example Greg., Hist. 4.40, 10.2, 10.27.



early christian gaul29

them.148 In how far these three groups were identical or whether, and to what extent, they differed in detail, whether they were identical to the armati surrounding kings like Guntramn as bodyguards,149 or whether they were affiliated to a small number of particularly lavish ring-swords found in some opulent burials,150 is hard to tell. Coequal, but in all likelihood subordinated to this first group, were the conviva regis, a group of Romans,151 which included men like the tribunus and later comes Conda152 and the patricius Mummolus.153 This group was likewise characterised by a close connection to the king. Beyond this, at least some of the king’s pueri regi could also take up arms on the latter’s behalf.154 Even if all these armed men were in one way or another particularly close to the royal court and may have received some sort of remuneration for their services, it remains most doubtful whether they did, in fact, compose what could be called a standing army, which would imply that they were at the king’s service, as a military body, at any time. Considering the incomplete evidence, it is still not impossible that some among these groups, which all together certainly composed a large and impressive royal retinue, did serve as some sort of, certainly comparably small, standing force. 3. Authority and Rulership in Transformation The enemy pressure exerted on the Roman world since late Antiquity both inside and outside the empire’s borders did not only result in significant changes of its military structures, but it also affected the Roman administration, at least indirectly. The precarious frontier situation required a professional body, able to deal with upcoming military crises, whereas, on the other hand, the vast civil structures that still characterised late Roman society had also to adapt.155 One solution to the problem was to dissociate the military from the civil offices,156 a step that had 148 See Greg., Hist. 2.42, 4.22, 4.51, 5.18, 6.45, 8.16, 8.31. Cf. Irsigler (1969), 253. 149 See Greg., Hist. 7.8, 7.18. 150 See Steuer (1987, Ringschwert). 151 Subordination is suggested by his wergeld, Lex Sal. 41.8., which is still lower than the wergild for qui in truste dominica est,ibid. 41.5. Cf. ibid. 15.1, 41.1, 41.3, 41.9. 152 Fort., Carm. 7.16. Cf. Selle-Hosbach (1974), 75. 153 Fort., Carm. 7.14. Cf. Selle-Hosbach (1974), 133–7. The regina Brunechildis in verbo suo posuerat Sichar possibly is a third known member of the conviva regis. Greg., Hist 9.9. 154 Lex Sal. 13.7. See also the regina pueri in Greg., Hist. 2.37, 4.28, 5.14, 6.32. 155 Eich (2005), 509–28. 156 Southern (2007), 248; Demandt (1998), 36. See also Campbell (1975), 27–8.

30

chapter two

already been prepared by the senators’ exclusion from any military command in the time of Gallienus.157 As Roman aristocrats restricted their employment to civil functions, barbarians became all the more numerous in military fields.158 The dissociation of the civil and the military elite is illustrated best by A. Demandt, who showed that until the later fifth century, family ties between the old senatorial aristocracy and the leading military in power were virtually inexistent. On the other hand, the majority of the barbarian regal families can be traced back to the Tetrarchs, who had themselves emerged from the military.159 Since the fourth century, military command was detached progressively from the cursus honorum that every male member of the Roman elite until then had been expected to progress through.160 As a consequence, the leadership over more or less large parts of the army was increasingly assigned to lower-born Romans, as well as military men of barbarian descent, and this most of all in consideration of their respective military skills.161 This means that particularly talented war-leaders could rise in status inside the Roman system, irrespective of their provenance, and thus could get access to high offices like the magister militum.162 Probably as a consequence, institutions best known from a barbarian environment, like the retinue, gained in importance inside late Roman military structures.163 This is not to say that comparable arrangements were uncommon to Romans, nor that they were limited to barbarian leaders.164 The precarious personal situation many late Roman military leaders found themselves confronted with at one time or another,165 is one possible reason why, from the later fourth century, they are recorded as having followings.166 A more specific type of retinue, which was reportedly held by men like the half-Roman military leader Stilicho or the Roman 157 Aur., Caes. 33. Demandt (1998), 212–13. See also Eich (2005), 512. Cf. Eck (1999), 52. 158 Cf. Demandt (1998), 239; Gradowicz-Pancer (1996), 277–8. 159 Demandt (1980), 609–36. See also Gauthier (2000), 195–8; Liebeschuetz (2007), 490. The sixth-century aristocracy still preferred ancient Roman ancestry: Fort., Carm. 4.5, l. 7. 160 Demandt (1998), 230; Southern (2007), 77; Eck (1999), 52–3; Demandt (1980), 610–11. 161 Cf. Hannestad (2001), 152. 162 Demandt (1998), 230. 163 Cf. Caes., Bell. I 4.2, III 22.1–3, VI 15.2, VI 19.4; Tac., Germ. 13–14. 164 See Bachrach (2008), 180–1; Southern (2007), 249; 254; Whittaker (1993), 290. 165 Cf. Mam., Paneg. 24.4. 166 See CTh. VII 8.7; Claud., Ruf. 2, l. 76; Sid., Epist. III 2.1, III 2.3, IV 20. See also Halsall (2003, Warfare), 45; Demandt (1998), 231; Liebeschuetz (1993), 269; Whittaker (1993), 295–7.



early christian gaul31

magister militum Aëtius, was composed of bucellarii.167 The term itself either refers to a specific type of bread distributed to these men,168 or to the ‘bite’ they were offered in return for their services.169 Unlike regular soldiers, they tended to be foremost loyal to the man they were supposed to serve,170 which entails that the latter could also potentially call them to support his own purposes.171 Unsurprisingly, fifth-century military leaders thus were among the most powerful men in the northern provinces of the empire.172 They were authoritative enough to exert a significant influence, which soon included the designation of a new emperor.173 This meant a significant loss of influence of the Roman emperor174 who, by the fifth century, had ceased to lead his armies regularly himself.175 The effectiveness of the Roman military until the middle of the fifth century,176 despite its decaying organisation as perceptible for instance in the irregular payments of its soldiers,177 was certainly due to a significant extent to the authority and skill of these military leaders.178 Sidonius Apollinaris, for example, praised his son-in-law Ecdicius for having raised a small troop at his own expenses and to have fought back the Goths that had besieged his episcopal see of Clermont.179 That these men could dispose of an authority strong enough to assemble an armed force by themselves is suggested by a contemporary chronicle, which reports that, face to an attack by the Huns in 451: “Aëtius had such great foresight that, when fighting men were hurriedly collected from everywhere, a not unequal force met the opposing multitude”.180 The evidence suggests that authority gradually disengaged itself from the titles and functions the 167 See Bachrach (2008), 176; Whittaker (1993), 294–6; Schmitt (1994); Demandt (1980), 631–2; Gascou (1976), 143–156; Diesner (1972), 321–350. See, for example, Greg., Hist. 2.8. 168 Demandt (1998), 231; Gascou (1976), 143. 169 Cf. Gaffiot (1934), 230, col. 2. 170 See Demand (1998), 231; Bachrach (2008), 176. 171 Whitby (2000), 96; Demandt (1980), 632–3; Diesner (1972), 326–8. 172 Demand (1998), 230; Whittaker (1993), 297; Campbell (1975), 27. Cf. Werner (1988), 4. Their power was soon perceptible outside the military, see Prosp., Chron. a. 412. 173 See Prosp., Chron. a. 384, a. 392; Anders (2010), 116–17, 340–1; Demandt (1998), 150. 174 Cf. Dixon/Southern (2000), 179; Whitby (2000), 290–1 and 296; Demandt (1998), 239; (1980), 632. 175 Lee (2007), 21–37. 176 See Böhme (1998), 52–3. Cf. Hoffmann (1973), 12–14. 177 Cf. Sid., Epist. III 8.1; Eug., Sev. 20,1–2. 178 See Prosp., Chron. a. 428; Chron. 452 a. 427, a. 436, a. 440; Hyd., Chron. a. 438. See also Elton (1992), 170–1. 179 Sid., Epist. III 3.7. 180 […] patricii Aetii providentia fuit, ut raptim congregatis undique bellatoribus viris adversae multitudini non inpar occurreret. Prosp., Chron. a. 451, p. 481. Transl. A.C. Murray (2000), 73.

32

chapter two

empire conferred to designated men and that it increasingly emanated first and foremost from an individual’s personality, skill, reputation, and attachment.181 Considering the fact that most barbarian leaders had been members of the Roman military,182 it also seems that when barbarian kings made an end to Roman rule in the West by establishing their own rulership, on a regional scale, they first and foremost definitely detached their authority from the Roman Empire.183 The fading governmental organisation in the north-western provinces of the fifth century entailed the abandonment of the previous dissociation between military and civil fields of responsibility.184 Faced with imminent danger and the lack of imperial functionaries, vital respon­ sibilities, such as the command over an army, thus were increasingly assigned to dignitaries regarded capable of doing so in consideration of their authority and reputation, but irrespective of their specific function. This was the case with the bishop of Clermont, Sidonius Apollinaris who, in the 470s, was himself involved in the defence of his episcopal see, which was besieged time and again by Goths.185 Arbogast, the barbarian governor of Trier, also appears to have been responsible for both the civil and mitary aspects of the district.186 It seems that civil functions, which until the later fourth century had been considered superior to military responsibilities, were overtaken in importance by the military until the second half of the fifth century.187 This revalorisation of military responsibilities may have eased the introduction of new military leaders from the highest families of Gaul, as in the case of the Gallic aristocrat and future emperor F. Eparchius Avitus. Conversely, this new valuation might also have facilitated the admission of former military leaders to civil offices, as in the case of the same Avitus, who was appointed in 439 to the civil function of a praefectus praetorio Galliarum, despite his previous military career.188 When in the fifth century Roman authority had faded in Gaul, military leaders and bishops remained as the sole rulers in the West, even though on a smaller scale. Power had ceased to be conferred by the empire, as it now primarily emanated from individuals, be it due to their birth, public 181 See Whitby (2000), 297; Liebeschuetz (1993), 269. 182 See Kaiser (2004), 16–19; Burns (1994), 115. 183 Similar Demandt (1998), 150; Stickler (1993), 510; Werner (1988), 6. 184 Cf. Southern (2007), 82. 185 See Sid., Epist. III 7.4, VII 1.1, VII 1.7. 186 See MacGeorge (2003), 75, with further references. 187 See Sid., Epist. I 9.2; Maier (2005), 99; MacGeorge (2003), 222; Demandt (1998), 213. 188 Demandt (1998), 141–2. See also Heinzelmann (1982), 567.



early christian gaul33

relations, wealth, personality, military skills, degree of respect, or charisma. Just like Roman military leaders before them, these men of high rank often disposed of a more or less impressive accompaniment of supporters, including armed men at their own service and responsible for their safety.189 Although attempts had been made to prohibit the private hiring of soldiers,190 comparable retinues are soon also recorded in connection to ecclesiastical authorities, among which some had managed to become significant local authorities,191 adding secular obligations and responsibilities to their ecclesiastical roles. Unsurprisingly, episcopal sees had become particularly interesting for Roman aristocrats, who soon recognised the opportunity to exercise power, alongside the barbarian rulers, under the Church’s protection.192 This episcopal power benefitted from having managed to maintain independence from imperial and regal legitimation.193 As a consequence, episcopal positions were eagerly competed for,194 and some were certainly entered into more out of worldly ambition than devotion. The position and power of some late fifth-century bishops thus was comparable to those of local and regional secular authorities.195 A well-known example is Hilary, the bishop of Arles, who was accused by the pope Leo I for intervening with his armed retainers to make sure that vacant episcopal sees were assigned to his own relations.196 Although this case might be exceptional, it confirms that, until the late fifth century, authority was exercised on a much more basic level, having shifted from imperial designation to a form of power exercised at a much smaller scale, and primarily assumed at an inter-personal level. The predominance of retinues remained a characteristic of postRoman rulership, together with the duality of ecclesiastical and secular powers, as it had emerged since the fifth century.197 To what extent interpersonal bonds were significant, even to the core ideas of power, is illustrated by Venantius Fortunatus referring to King Chilperic’s marriage to the Visigothic princess Galswinth: 189 Demandt (1980), 631–3. See also Sid., Epist. III 3.3. 190 CTh. VII 1.15. See also Gascou (1976), 144. 191 See Prinz (1973), 16; Heinzelmann (1976). Cf. Jussen (1995), 676–9; Durliat (1979), 237–54. See also the comments in Wood (1994), 25. 192 Prinz (1973), 9; 13–14. See also Mathisen (1979), 164–5. 193 Jussen (1995), 688. 194 Prinz (1973), 15. 195 See Demandt (1980), 609–36. See also Patzold (2010), with further references. 196 Nov. Val. 17.1. Cf. Whittaker (1993), 291; Mathisen (1979), 166; Prinz (1973), 14–15. 197 Similar Ropert (1976), 53.

34

chapter two The maiden is then joined in wedlock to the most loftily king,  and earned the great love and respect of the people. Charming some by gifts, others by her words,  she thus makes even strangers her own. The armed ranks swear an oath on their weapons in their own right,  that they would be loyal to her, and bind themselves by law.198

According to this poem, posthumously dedicated to the princess, this new bond was not limited to the newly married couple. It also involved the king’s retinue, which was expected to offer an oath of fealty to the new queen. Followings, in the broad sense, however, were not limited to the royal family, nor to the elite. They were present with a large variety of size, rank, and status, at almost every level of post-Roman society. This variety is also reflected in the terminology used to refer to them, which includes terms like satelle, socius, vir, sui, or puer. A Saxon with the name Chulderic, for example, is known to have had two men at his disposal that were able to kill a certain criminal known as Avus with their spears. A servant of a certain Pathir was also armed, as he reportedly murdered the Jew Priscus. The same is true with regard to the servants that accompanied the merchant Christophorus.199 The comes, dux, and patricius were the most important royal functionaries. They could either be appointed to a royal court or be requested to govern one part of the realm. The field of responsibility of the comes corresponded in most cases with the range of a civitas,200 whereas the dux and rector/patricius could be responsible for an entire region or province.201 Apart from governmental functions, their main fields of duty also comprised judicial responsibilities,202 as well as the assembling and 198 […] iungitur ergo toro regali culmine virgo/ et magno meruit plebis amore coli,/ hos quoque muneribus permulcens, vocibus illos,/ et licet ignotos sic facit esse suos./ utque fidelis ei sit gens armata, per arma/ iurat iure suo, se quoque lege ligat. Fort., Carm. 6.5, ll. 237–46, p. 142. Transl. J.W. George (1995), 47. 199 Greg., Hist. 7.3 (Chulderic); ibid. 6.17 (Pathir); ibid. 7.46 (Christophorus). For more mentions of armed followings see ibid. 3.14, 3.35, 4.16, 4.45, 5.14, 5.25, 5.49, 6.4, 6.11, 7.9, 7.29, 7.38, 7.39, 7.47, 8.26, 8.31, 8.45, 9.9, 9.19, 10.2, 10.4, 10.5; Greg., Mart. 60, 65, 71; Greg., Jul. 2.16. Cf. also the further discussion in Irsigler (1969), 228–30. 200 On the comes and his various functions, see Cypr., Caes. 1.48; Greg., Hist. 4.8, 6.22, 6.24, 6.31, 7.2. 7.13, 8.18, 8.30, 9.19, 10.21; Greg., Mart. 53; Greg., Virt. 1.40, 3.53; Greg., Patr. 4.3, 7.1, 8.3; Fred. 4.87; Dado, Elig. 2.62, 2.66; Pass. Praei. 14. Cf. Claude (1964). 201 On the patricius, see Greg., Hist. 4.13, 4.24, 4.42, 4.43, 7.36, 9.22; Fort., Carm. 7.12; Fred. 4.2, 4.5, 4.18, 4.21, 4.24, 4.28–9, 4.44, 4.58, 4.78, 4.90; Pass. Leud.9. 26; Desid., Epist. 2.2; Pass. Praei. 23; Dado., Elig. 2.28. On the dux, see Greg., Hist. 2.20, 6.19, 6.31, 6.46, 6.50, 7.2, 8.28, 8.29, 9.9, 9.19; Greg., Mart. 77; Greg., Conf. 32; Greg., Patr. 3.1–2; Greg., Virt. 2.17, 4.41; Fred. 4.12–14, 4.20, 4.42, 4.54, 4.67, 4.73, 4.74–8, 4.87–90. Cf. Lewis (1976), 381–410; SelleHosbach (1974), 17–19; Sprandel (1957), 41–84. 202 See Marc., Form. 1.8. Iudex is often used as a synonym for comes, Greg., Hist. 6.8.



early christian gaul35

command of royal armies.203 After the establishment of the Merovingian kingdom, the abolition of a dissociation between military and civil fields of responsibility, as initiated by Diocletian, thus had become permanent. Post-Roman secular powers now incorporated both civil and military fields of responsibility, which could include jurisdiction, tax collection, and military command.204 In the process, however, military duties became predominant in importance.205 This militarisation of officialdom was not limited to the local or regional authorities, but seems to have become a general feature of the new elite and its attachment.206 Many domestici, for example, whose title suggests that their duties lay in the civil or even homely sphere, are known to have engaged in military action.207 The same is true in regard to at least some sixth-century, and a larger number of seventh-century, spiritual authorities, who did not refuse to make use of weapons, or who were at least willing to arrange for the material protection of their flock, for example by the erection of defensive fortifications.208 The separation of royal and delegated authority, not least due to the fact that post-Roman Gaul was often ruled by more than one king at the same time, entailed a general reduction of authorial scope of action, which became characteristic of post-Roman power.209 These much smaller spheres of action facilitated the further development and importance of individual-related authority, which means that the demonstration of presence and power, as argued in the fifth chapter, became important features of rulership. Power increasingly emanated from an individual’s connections and personality, whereas specific titles and offices gradually lost significance. In the seventh century, a title hardly 203 See George (1992), 141; Buchner (1933), 6–29. See also Halsall (1998), 9. 204 See Greg., Hist. 4.30, 4.42, 4.44, 4.45, 4.47, 4.50, 5.13, 5.25, 5.28, 5.29, 6.12, 6.22, 6.31, 7.13, 7.15, 7.18, 7.21, 7.22, 7.29, 7.38, 7.47, 8.26, 8.30, 9.12, 9.28, 9.30, 9.35, 10.9, 10.19, 10.21; Greg., Patr. 4.2, 4.3, 7.1, 8.3, 8.7; Greg., Mart. 72; Fort., Carm. 4.2, 7.7, 7.16; Form. And. 50; Form. Marc. 1.8; Fred. 4.54, 4.87; Dado, Elig. 2.62. See also Carlot (1903), 17. This re-established the situation of Republican times, see Southern (2007), 76–7; Eck (1999), 52. 205 Similar Heather (2005), 440–1. 206 G. Halsall (1998) speaks here of a “military specialization of the aristocracy” (p. 30). 207 See Conda (Fort., Carm. 7.16) or Fredulf (Fred. 4.87), who also participated in their king’s campaigns. See also the palatial officers like Faraulf (Greg., Hist. 7.18), Eberulf (ibid. 7.21. 22. 29), Waddo (ibid. 9.35), or Waldebert (Fred. 4.54,). Cf. Selle-Hosbach (1974), 7–37. 208 See the castrum of Nicetius of Trier near the river Mosel. Fort., Carm. 3.12. See also Pass. Leud. 2; Vit. Desid. 17; Jussen (1995), 683; Durliat (1979), 240–1; Prinz (1973), 2–3. 209 Smith (2007), 59. See also Cap. IX 12, 19, prohibiting the appointment of non-local bishops and iudices. Similar Greg., Hist. 5.46.

36

chapter two

revealed its bearer’s function or field of responsibility.210 Furthermore, some secular and ecclesiastical scopes of responsibility, including jurisdiction,211 continued to change. This is best documented with regard to the dux and the comes, as well as the bishop and the comes, whose respective fields of responsibility progressively overlapped. The results were quarrels, as the one that arose in the later sixth century between the dux Ennodius and some local comites, and another fought out between Bishop Nicetius of Lyon and his local count Armentarius.212 From the late sixth century onwards, the duties of a comes or dux also increasingly encompassed tasks that had nothing to do with their initial functions as a local or regional regal representant.213 The maior domus, whose field of responsibility might have initially been quite similar to the one of a domesticus, had gained responsibility over such a wide field of operation, until, by the eighth century, its office-holders could dispose of their king, legitimated by blood, and finally depose the last representative of the Merovingians.214 In the seventh century, religious authorities like the bishops increasingly appeared by the king’s side, alongside secular authorities.215 They had ceased to represent an (almost exclusively Roman) countervailing power to the new (predominantly barbarian) military elite.216 Secular and ecclesiastic members of the elite now formed two groups of functionaries from one and the same social stratum in power.217 From the late sixth century onwards, secular and religious authority thus increasingly lay in the hands of members of one and the same family. Romulf, son of dux Lupus of Champagne, for example, was the bishop of Reims.218 These bishops are more frequently found taking on military duties, like the supervising of their city’s defence,219 and, as noted above, some even kept 210 See Greg., Hist. 9.7; Fort., Carm. 7.25, 10.1, and the evidence given in Sprandel (1957), 70. See also the discussion in Claude (1964); Reydellet (1977), 194. 211 See Hartmann (1995), 836. 212 Greg., Hist. 9.7 (dux and comes), Greg., Patr. 8.3 (comes and bishop). See also Greg., Hist. 4.39, 5.36; Capit. 8.6. On the civil functions of the bishop, see Prinz (1973), 6–7; (1971), 42–8. See also Kreiner (2011, 321–60)’s discussion on the bishop’s relation to secular issues. 213 See i. a. a comes charged with supervision. Dado, Elig. 2.66, or the diplomatic function of dux Lupus. Fort., Carm. 7.7, ll. 25–30. Cf. Dumézil (2007), 557; Bachrach (1972), 87. 214 The maior domus called comes palatii or palatii praepositus, see Sprandel (1957), 71. 215 See Greg., Hist. 8.9; Fred. 4.89, 4.90; Pass. Leud. 23; Act. Aun. 3. 216 See Prinz (1971), 39. See also Jussen (1995), 685. 217 See Y. Hen (2007), 123. See also Werner (1992), 185, referring to Desid., Epist. 2.8; Prinz (1971), 58. 218 Greg., Hist. 10.19. See also the dux Gundulfus, uncle of Gregory of Tours, Greg., Hist. 6.11; Act. Aun. 2–3; George (1992), 133. 219 See, for example Greg., Hist. 7.27.



early christian gaul37

some sort of armed bodyguard. The life of the bishop Leudevald, for example, is said to have been saved only thanks to his own retinue.220 This new dichotomy between ecclesiastical and secular powers, perceptible since the fifth century and throughout the Middle Ages, thus never was very strict. Both spheres were characterised by common features and overlappings, even if they remained distinct in most ways. 4. Late Roman and Merovingian Society In the time of the Principate and until late Antiquity, Roman society was, generally speaking, fairly demilitarised.221 Bearing weapons was not a general right linked to Roman citizenship, and emperors like Augustus and Valentinian I made several attempts to forbid their private ownership.222 The use of force and the bearing of weapons were, at least in theory, monopolised by the army,223 whereas arms were manufactured by state-run fabricae.224 No weapon, and thus no soldier, were permitted inside the urban territory of Rome, the pomerium, which delimited the imperium domi from the imperium militae.225 In the time of the Principate, the armed fraction of the Roman population might not have exceeded 1%, and around the year 400, it is estimated that it still did not exceed 2% of the empire’s total population.226 Late Roman law did not enforce compulsory military service, as had been done in the times of the Republic.227 Warfare was thus unknown to a majority of its inhabitants.228 To those living inside the empire, it was primarily known from imperial propaganda, like the triumphs celebrated subsequent to every major victory.229 A fifth-century comedy, presumably composed in southern Gaul around 420/30, mocks the resulting lack of military experience in a dialogue between a Roman named Querolus and his domestic deity:

220 Greg., Hist 8.31. See also ibid. 3.35; Fouracre (1998), 65; Assenmacher (1987), 249. 221 Demandt (1998), 224–5; Wierschowski (1995), 239; Liebeschuetz (1993), 274. 222 Schmoeckel (2006), 46–7. On restrictions, see Nicolay (2008), 207–8. See also Demandt (1998), 227; Derks/Jefferis (1998), 45; Künzl (1993), 522; Halsall (1992), 197; 200–1. 223 See the comments in James (1999), 15. 224 Hardt (2004), 128–9; Demandt (1998), 227; Derks/Jefferis (1998), 45. 225 Rüpke (1990), 36. See also Price (1996), 818–19; Woolf (1993), 173. 226 Cf. Demandt (1998), 36 and 224. See in turbam inermem. Sid., Epist. III 3.6, p. 42. 227 Bringmann (2002), 187–188, 212, 222, 236–239. See also Demandt (1998), 231–2. 228 Hölscher (2003), 3; Rüpke (1990), 229 and 240. See also Watson (1969, 143. 229 See the comments in Rüpke (1990), 229; Lee (2007), 38.

38

chapter two querolus: Give me riches and honours of the military, even if only few of them. lar: This I can offer you. But do consider whether you are able to accomplish what you ask for. querolus: What do you mean? lar: Are you able to wage war? To handle the steel? To break the battle line? querolus: I have never been able to do this.230

Warfare, nevertheless, had remained part of contemporaries’ life experience in the border regions where, as indicated above, large numbers of Romans and barbarians were recruited from the local population. The high number of recruits and the continuous military presence in these regions are likely to have had some sort of impact on local society. I.P. Haynes has shown, for example, that the continuous recruitment, in large numbers, of the Batavians, a fairly Romanised tribe that settled in the region of the Rhine estuary, entailed a fostering of warlike values and a gain of martial behavioural patterns.231 A comparable impact is likely to have affected any other group recruited for military service,232 and if Ammianus Marcellinus is to be believed, the Gauls in fact did not despise military service as much as other Romans did.233 Faced with an increased presence of military and even barbarians inside the Roman borders, habits related to the world of war also gained in popularity among those living in more central regions of the empire. This phenomenon apparently emerged alongside its occasional prohibition. In Rome, the habit of wearing tunica, chlamys and palludamentum, in combination, had been strictly limited to the military until the later third century.234 But wearing the chlamys above the tunica apparently became acceptable by the year 382, even for civil official representation, as suggested by a law issued to prohibit the same.235 Barbarian fashions such as trousers, long sleeves or boots also must have gained in pop­ularity, as they had to be legally banned from the city of Rome in 399.236 Although trousers were considered a sign of mental and physical weakness until 230 Qver: Da mihi diuitias atque honores militares uel mediocriter. Lar: Istud tibi praestare ualeo. Verum illud uide, si tu ualeas implere quod petis. Qver: Quid? Lar: Potes bellum gerere? ferrum excipere? aciem rumpere? Qver: Istud numquam potui. Quer. 1.2, ll. 6–11, p. 16. Rutilius Namatianus could be the author of the comedy. Chadwick (1955), 134–5. 231 Haynes (2000), 69–71. Cf. Nicolay (2008), 244. 232 Cf. Le Bohec/Bate (2000), 250. 233 Am. XV 12.3. Cf. Demandt (1998), 277, with further references to relevant sources. 234 Arce (2005), 34. 235 CTh XIV 10.1. 236 CTh XIV 10.2–3.



early christian gaul39

the later third century, and although they were only occasionally worn by Roman soldiers when campaigning in the north, they had become a common fashion for officials around 400.237 Another law was issued in 416 to forbid long hair and the wearing of skins, which were both likewise common to barbarians.238 Throughout the fifth century, Gaul experienced a continuing need for armed defence. The invasions, together with increasing numbers of rambling bandits, deserted soldiers, and other troublemakers,239 required a reconsideration of private armed defence.240 Landowners apparently were more and more frequently in situations where they had to defend their territories with the help of armed men, sometimes needing to defend themselves even from the army itself. The presence of a private host provided these men a certain degree of independence, which again entailed a loss of imperial power.241 Faced with the impossibility of prohibiting private arms-bearing and the undeniable necessity to respond to acts of violence in an appropriate way, armed self-defence against marauding soldiers was legally allowed in 391.242 In 420, a law was issued permitting the fortification of private premises.243 As the protection the empire offered to the local population became increasingly ineffective during the late fifth century, many civilian inhabitants of threatened regions either took up arms and learned how to use them, or else sought protection by subordinating themselves to a local authority that could provide the protection required.244 Such shelter could be offered by Roman aristocrats, including ecclesiastical dignitaries such as Hilary of Arles, or by wealthy military men of Roman or barbarian descent, many of which by then had become landlords themselves.245 By the end of the fifth century, society’s relation to warfare had significantly changed, not least as the result of the modified military structures described above. The likelihood of a young man to be required to par­ ticipate in an armed confrontation must have been much higher in the late fifth century, compared to earlier Roman times. Although a soldier 237 Harlow (2004), 60–4. 238 CTh XIV 10.4. See Arce (2005), 43; Ropert (1976), 49–50. 239 Geary (1996), 29; Whittaker (1993), passim. 240 On archaeological evidence, see Pfahl/Reuter (1996), 140. 241 See CTh VII 1.17; Whittaker (1993), 286–7. 242 Demandt (1998), 227. 243 Ibid., 235. 244 See Maier (2005), 324–5; Nicolay (2008), 213–15 and 254. 245 See Pfahl/Reuter (1996), 134–5; and Whittaker (1993), 284–7, with further references.

40

chapter two

enrolled into the Roman army was supposed to serve for twenty years,246 which entails that he was part of a military body for a significant part of his life, the likelihood that a post-Roman warrior would get involved in some sort of fighting was much higher, even though he was only temporarily levied to campaign for his king. However, some Roman soldiers might have never faced an enemy host during the entire twenty years of military service.247 Moreover, the Roman state allocated the necessary armament to its soldiers, whereas it appears as if Merovingian warriors, if not already many among the late Roman soldiers, were expected to provide their own weapons. As every man now was a potential warrior,248 it had also become more difficult to distinguish a civil man from the military. What is more, as argued above, this post-Roman society was governed by a secular elite whose members were all apparently expected to regularly participate in armed undertakings.249 Several references in the works of Gregory of Tours, including settings where people were caught in situations where weapons were required to save an individual’s life, but where armament was not necessarily selfevident, suggest that the bearing of weapons had become common in Merovingian Gaul. Gregory reports how in his own episcopal district two armed men went to a house to ask for a drink but were told by its sole inhabitant that he had nothing to offer. However, when these warriors “levelled their spears and were about to transfix him. [..] he [the local inhabitant] drew his sword and pierced them both.”250 The same author recounts how a certain Chuppa attempted to abduct the daughter of Bishop Badegisel of Le Mans with his band by breaking into her house. In this case, however, it was the girl’s mother Magnatrude who immediately assembled her servants to counterattack. Many assailants were killed, and the rest were chased away.251 Furthermore, when some members of King Guntramn’s host finally ravaged the region of St-Bertrand-de-Comminges, those who wandered too far afield were reportedly killed by local peasants.252 The depositions of arms and other military equipment in burials 246 Southern (2007), 99. 247 See Southern (2007), 77–8; Watson (1969), 143–4. 248 A similar state of fact prevailed in Republican times, when “[j]eder römische Bürger [..] potentieller Soldat, jeder Soldat sicher römischer Bürger [ist]“. Rüpke (1995), 227. 249 Similar Liebeschuetz (2007), 46; Heather (2005), 451. 250 Cumque ille se habere negarit, elevatis lanceis ut eum transfoderent, hic extracto gladio utrumque perfodit, cecideruntque ambo et mortui sunt. Greg., Hist. 7.21, p. 340. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 299. 251 Greg., Hist. 10.5. 252 Greg., Hist. 7.35. See also ibid. 3.15, 7.13, 7.34, 7.47, 9.27; Greg., Jul. 5; Greg., Patr. 8.7.



early christian gaul41

also confirm the significance of possessing, and in all likelihood using, these artefacts.253 It seems self-evident that in this society, the art of combat was part of what a young boy was taught, at least to a certain extent, as it would have been foolish to send someone to fight in an armed combat without any previous practice in the use of the necessary weaponry. A certain degree of familiarity with arms is also suggested by several stipulations found in the so-called barbarian laws, which specifically penalise injuries caused to parts of the human body.254 An augmented requirement to participate in armed undertakings is not necessarily the sole reason for the increased presence of weapons. In fact, the sources leave little room for doubt that Merovingian society could be rather violent.255 Gregory’s stories, mostly uncommented, leave the impression that a certain degree of brutalisation was part of contemporaries’ everyday experience.256 In addition, devastation, including the burning of housings, the ravaging of fields and other goods, and the enslavement and murder of the local population, must have been rather common, particularly, but not exclusively, where an enemy host or local army passed by.257 Nor did plague spare the local population; an epidemic in the later sixth century appears to have been particularly murderous.258 The evidence indicates that even local rivalries had increased since the later sixth century.259 In the course of the seventh century, political violence tended to be fought on a smaller scale, and this not least due to an increasing prevalence of rivalries between the different representatives of local and regional authority. Although it remains an issue of debate to what extent barbarian society was more characterised by violence and martial values than the Roman,260 it is safe to say that this violence was 253 See Halsall (1998), 31. See also the assessment in Meyer (2005), 63. 254 See, for example Lex Hlo. I 62.15. Hüppe-Dröge (1981), 118. 255 See the discussion in Liebeschuetz (2007, Violence), 46; Pohl (2007), 21–2; Scharff (2005), 65; Fouracre (1998), 60–61; Halsall (1998), 3–30; De Nie (1990), 150. 256 See, for example Vit. Chroth. 2; Greg., Hist. 2.28, 2.33, 3.5, 3.7, 3.18, 3.23, 3.26, 4.4, 4.12, 4.20, 5.3, 5.14; Mar., Chron. a. 500, a. 560, a. 576; Fred. 4.38, 4.42, 4.67; Form. Marc. 2.28. 257 See, for example Greg., Hist. 2.37, 3.3, 3.12, 4.48, 5.1, 5.2, 5.29, 5.31, 6.45, 9.7, 9.18, 9.24; Greg., Jul. 23; Greg., Mart. 51; Greg., Conf. 22; Fred. 3.36, 3.54, 3.68, 3.70, 3.87, 4.37, 4.45, 4.54; LHF 37, 38, 41, 46; Cont. 3. See also the noteworthy stipulations in Form. Marc. 1.33, 1.34. For some cases where other bands of warriors pillaged the local population, see Greg., Hist. 6.45, 8.18, 9.35; Greg., Mart. 65; Greg., Jul. 7. 258 See, for example Greg., Hist. 2.18, 2.24, 4.5, 4.16, 4.31, 5.34, 6.14, 6.33, 7.1, 8.39, 9.13, 9.21, 9.22, 10.23, 10.25, 10.30; Greg., Patr. 6.6, 9.2, 17.4; Greg., Conf. 78; Mar., Chron. a. 570, a. 571; Fred. 4.18; Dado, Elig. 2.43, 2.54. Cf. Bachrach (2007). 259 See, for example Greg., Hist. 3.14, 6.4, 7.2, 10.27; Fred. 4.37, 4.43, 4.53, 4.90; Pass. Leud. 2–3. See also the comments in Fouracre (1998), 65. 260 Cf. Veg. III 10.3. See also Lebedynsky (2001), 6; Holzhauer (1986), 263–83.

42

chapter two

not exclusively the result of an increased presence of barbarians.261 According to a calculation by R.F. Newbold, the volumes two to ten of Gregory of Tours’ Histories alone contain 261 separate instances of physical interpersonal violence, exclusive of violence committed in the act of war.262 Twenty of these took place in the civitas of Tours, whereas 140 can be located in other parts of Gaul: that twenty are recorded for the civitas that Gregory knew best suggests that these cases only represent a very small percentage of the violence that had actually taken place.263 Considering the comparably small size of the kingdoms and the reduced scope of its regional and local authorities, as well as the proba­ bility of an increased generally felt insecurity, the world as it was perceived, and experienced by contemporaries, had become smaller. A certain feeling of insecurity is confirmed by Gregory of Tours referring to his father who, […] wished himself to be protected by relics of saints, [..] asked a cleric to grant him something from these relics, so that with their protection he might be kept safe […]. He claimed that often, because of the powers of these relics, he had avoided the violence of bandits, the dangers of floods, the threats of turbulent men, and attacks from swords.264

The general impression left by contemporary sources is that, beyond being more person-centred to the detriment of state-run institutions, Merovingian society had also become more noticeably religious. Both elements are well documented by an increased popularity and spread of oaths, preferably given in religious settings at almost every possible occasion, and this regardless of an individual’s ethnic provenance.265 The decline in significance of central authority, closely bound up with this enhanced significance of inter-personal relations, is also confirmed by the early medieval compensational system, which aimed at recompensing offenses committed against individuals by having the injured family indemnified by the culprit’s kin.266 Comparable acts of revenge could 261 Cf. Pohl (2007), 19. 262 Newbold (1994), 3. 263 Ibid., 6. See also the discussion in Scheibelreiter (1999), 342. 264 […] pater meus […] voluit se sanctorum reliquiis communiri, petivitque a quodam sacerdote, ut ei aliquid de hisdem indulgeret […]. Referre enim erat solitus, se a multis tunc periculis eruto; nam et violentias latronum et pericula fluminum, inprobitates seditiosorum et adsultus ensuum saepius se evasisse horum virtutibus, testabatur. Greg., Mart. 83, p. 544. Transl. R. Van Dam (1988, Glory), 108. 265 See Esders (2007), 64. 266 See Liebeschuetz (2007, Violence), 39–40.



early christian gaul43

lead to impressive series of atrocities, as in the case of the so-called Sichar feud, which involved the death of at least thirteen individuals.267 The relative frequency of comparable acts of retaliation is also suggested by archaeological findings mainly dated to the later Merovingian age. In a recent study, H. Steuer pointed out the discovery of a significant number of common graves that contain the remains of two or more warriors, whose relationship is not infrequently testified by the fact that they were buried holding hands, or even embracing each other.268 In his recent study on post-Roman violence, J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz concludes that it was not least the threat of violence itself that “secured a reasonably stable society”, even if its members “depended on a widespread readiness to answer violence with violence”. According to him, in Merovingian society “a private individual would have been more likely to have to act violently or to have experienced violence inflicted by others than he would have under Roman administration”.269 Although it is difficult to compare Merovingian to late Roman society, in particular as both eras left sources of very different natures, qualities, aims, and prospected audiences, this brief survey shows that the general framework that characterised either worlds differed substantially with regard to their relation to the world of war, and possibly the degree of violence and contemporaries’ every-day experiences. 5. Conclusion North-western Europe had always belonged to the less pacified regions of the Roman Empire. However, the troubles on its borders before the fourth century had never disrupted the lives of its inhabitants in the long-term: every crisis could be overcome after a reasonably short time. This was no longer the case in the fifth century. What is known of late Roman Gaul suggests that the situation as it was known for several centuries gradually had got out of hand. A single event, like the barbarian inroads of the year 406, however, was not the only cause. Although this event certainly had a significant impact on contemporaries’ lives and the ways they looked at the world they lived in, the subsequent breakdown of Roman rule in north-western Europe and establishment of new, comparably small, 267 Halsall (1998), 2. For the Sichar-feud, see Greg., Hist. 7.47, 9.19. 268 Steuer (2008), 346. 269 Liebeschuetz (2007, Violence), 46.

44

chapter two

kingdoms, was primarily the result of an accumulation of a variance of factors, the total of which finally could not be outweighed by the remaining imperial structures. Merovingian society substantially differed from the Roman world in regard to its government, general structure, and its ways to deal with the inevitable necessity to protect the lives of its members. The Roman approach implied the raising of a professional army, composed of men considered fit for military service and mustered from near and far regions inside and outside the empire, to be paid, trained, and equipped for this purpose, by the state. The Merovingian procedure, on the contrary, only implied the calling up of local men able to take up arms, when required, and only for the duration of a specific conflict or campaign. The necessary equipment and training was not supplied by the authorities, but had to be provided by those participating in armed undertakings. As the new authorities neither offered remuneration to those who fought, the military not infrequently pillaged the belongings of its local population. Main features of post-Roman society comprehend person-centred functionalisms of relationships and power-structures, which imply a large variety of mostly armed followings, as they gradually appeared in the proximity of late Roman military leaders. The enhanced presence of armed fighters represented a main characteristic of post-Roman society in western Europe. In the fifth century, the dangers emanating from enemy hosts ceased to be a phenomenon widely limited to the border regions. The threat of armed violence seems to have gradually become part of contemporaries’ experience of life. As professional armies, composed of fighters enrolled for a pre-defined period of time, ceased to exist subsequent to the breakdown of the Roman military, armed hosts had to be assembled by calling as many locals to take up arms as required. This entails that the local population was much more intensely involved in the protection of its home territory. Although the exact conventions, according to which regal armies were raised, remain unclear, there is little doubt that the percentage of potential fighters had increased since the fifth century. In the meantime, the secular elite had become militarised. A military leader often possessed political significance beyond this particular scope of duty, as the functions assigned to the different regal officers, which mostly included the command of a regal host, diluted by the seventh century to the extent that a title did not tell much about its bearer’s area of authority. This blurring of the different scopes of responsibility also concerned ecclesiastical authorities, although to a lesser extent.



early christian gaul45

Subsequent to the collapse of Roman rule in the West, society thus had increasingly militarised, certainly not least as the result of the changed circumstances contemporaries had to face. This included an increased exposure to military violence and the requirement to partake in the same, and a growing significance of military duties, in the context of delegated regal power. Concurrently, a new societal dichotomy arose with the gradual opposition of spiritual and secular powers, which increasingly replaced the Roman opposition between the civil and the military.

CHAPTER THREE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND WRITTEN EVIDENCE A subject as complex as changing ideas and ways of perceiving the world has to rely on a body of evidence that should be as diversified as possible. As every piece of written evidence is characterised by its specific nature, aim, and the assumed audience, it is most important to avoid bias by considering every possible source of information. Unfortunately, this cannot always be avoided, due to the very fragmentary evidence that has been preserved from late Roman and early medieval times. Nevertheless, every extant source has the potential to be a small jigsaw piece of an ancient reality, even if this largely remains inaccessible to us. The aim of the following chapter is to give a broad outline of the written and archaeological vestiges available for this study and to discuss how they are relevant to it. This survey, of course, cannot be all-encompassing. As some pieces of evidence discussed here provide information solely on their own, they are only dealt with in this chapter, whereas other sources that are first and foremost significant in conjunction with other evidence will be mainly considered later in the book. 1. The Physical Remains – Nature and Relevance The thought world of those who fought and who took part in the world of war are subjects that have only seldom been the aim of archaeological research. In fact, as F. Theuws and M. Alkemade underlined in 2000, “[t]he burial ritual has hardly been analysed in relation to histories of ideas and mentalities.”1 A comparable analysis of this world of thought is hindered by the fact that, as S. Vencl observed in his essay on the utility of archaeology as a source for ancient warfare, that “while archaeological sources underrate the importance of warfare, written records have a tendency to the contrary”.2 Although military men represent the group of people that left the largest amount of personal belongings, archaeological

1 Theuws/Alkemade (2000), 407–8. 2 Vencl (1984), 116.

48

chapter three

vestiges indeed are no easy source for a student of their world of thought or their impact on contemporary society. 1.1. War in the Landscape A general difficulty historians and archaeologists working on late Roman and foremost early medieval times alike have to face is the lack of written and/or material evidence. In the rare case where both provide information on the same subject, they not infrequently contradict each other, or at least raise more questions than they answer.3 This is why historians have often tended to use archaeological evidence most of all to illustrate their results from written sources, not as a source on its own.4 Possible remains of an ancient battlefield, for example, were willingly taken into account to localise a nearby battle mentioned in regard to the same period in the written sources. However, comparable evidence was rarely consi­ dered in regard to questions that went beyond subjects raised by the text­ ual tradition.5 Attempts to equally, and simultaneously, consider both archaeological and written sources have only become frequent in the last two decades. Archaeological sites giving evidence of armed conflicts dating back to the time between the fifth and the seventh century are very rare, not least as battlefields were generally emptied after such an encounter. One example has been recently mentioned by H. Steuer, who describes hastily created mass graves that have been discovered in Aldaieta in northern Spain and that contain 116 bodies. According to the archaeologist, they possibly represent the vestiges of mostly Frankish victims that perished in a conflict fought on this spot in the middle of the sixth century.6 An archaeological source with comparable potential with regard to medieval warfare, but whose significance is more disputed, are coin hoards, i.e. large or smaller amounts of coinage mainly found buried in the ground. The central question for every study of coin hoards is how they got where they had been found. It is possible that many were hidden by their owners, when they found themselves faced with an imminent danger, and that they could not be recovered later on, either because the owner had died before he could do so or because he had no opportunity to get back to the site. As P. Haupt pointed out more recently, interpreting these deposits remains problematic, as many other reasons could have 3 See i. a. the difficulty to associate burial findings to a legal status, Steuer (1968), 57. 4 See Effros (2003, Mortuary), 1. 5 See, for example, Reddé/Schnurbein (2008). 6 Steuer (2008), 357. See also Meyer (2005), 40–1; Pirling (1997).



archaeological and written evidence49

led to the event. A large number of these hoards could have been created without any imminent external pressure.7 Some could be a reserve for bad times, or they were dug to hide and protect personal belongings from thieves, servants, or even family members considered a little too greedy. Although some deposits still could have been created because of fear of an approaching enemy, it is very difficult to associate a particular hoard with a specific military campaign, invasion, or other violent encounter. Coin hoards are thus a possible but still very problematic indicator for fear of or experience of armed violence.8 Fortifications are another possible indicator of fear of violence and, to the least, of a subjective need for enhanced protection. From the later third century onwards, military strongholds became more frequent in northwestern Europe,9 which seems to confirm a growing feeling of insecurity, be it due to incessant barbarian inroads or the unstable general political situation in and around Gaul. A generalised requirement for a long-term protection is also confirmed by the quality of many fortifications, which according to the estimation of H.V. Petrikovits “were built stronger, and for more prolonged defence, than ever before”.10 However, not every enhancement of the military structures must have been necessarily linked to a local situation: some refurbishments and fortifications were initiated throughout the Roman territory by the emperor Diocletian and his successors.11 The perceived danger inside the Roman borders, however, is also documented by the orientation of a majority of these fortifications. In contrast to earlier forts, offensively oriented to a single side, the newly established strongholds were preferentially built on hilltops, to have an overview over the near surroundings.12 In early medieval times, the number of smaller fortifications outside settlements seemingly increased.13 Even pre-Roman fortifications, often primarily protected by their settings, were reused. One of these natural castra was described by Gregory of Tours: it was a fort located in Chastel-Marlhac that was protected by its cliffs, which encompassed both a water source and arable land.14

  7 See the discussion in Haupt (2001), 87–95.   8 See the discussion in ibid., 93. Similar Knight (2007), 22–4. Cf. Hanemann (2005), 105; Künzl (1993), 534; Courcelle (1964), 82–3. See also Demougeot (1980), 94–7.   9 See the distribution maps in Wieczorek (1997, Ausbreitung), 243–9, figs. 169–76. 10 Petrikovits (1971), 193; cf. Knight (2007), 44. 11 Cf. Hoffmann (1973), 2. See also Böhme (1998), 52–3. 12 The latest Rhine fortification was erected under Valentinian, I. Petrikovits (1971), 187. 13 Loseby (1998), 251. 14 Greg., Hist. 3.13. The same author mentions castra built on high ground in Tauredu­ num (ibid. 4.31), Comminges (ibid. 7.34), and near Woëvre (ibid. 9.12). Further castra are

50

chapter three

The most common types of fortification in Gaul were curtain walls,15 strongholds,16 and structures on private estates.17 From the second half of the third century onwards and until the fifth century, a majority of Roman civitates were fortified by means of surrounding walls.18 Some of them were built with any material at hand – including gravestones.19 These settlements were also preferentially built on hill-tops.20 By the later fifth century, such fortifications had become a common feature, even in southern cities like Narbonne. Some of them were built around an entire inhabited area, while others only encompassed a small part of a city or settlement.21 The area protected by these walls could vary to a large extent. The ancient imperial city of Trier, for example, enclosed a territory of up to 285 ha, whereas in cities like Tours or Paris, the walls only surrounded around 9 ha, and the city of Clermont only 3 ha. The average has been estimated to a surface around 15 to 20 ha.22 By the late sixth century, curtain walls had become such a common feature that they could be considered a characteristic feature of the civitas.23 After the sixth century, however, they appear to have decreased, once more, in importance, at least to a certain extent. This is suggested by the presence of dwellings increasingly built outside the enclosed city. Most significantly, houses outside this protected area were also found where free space had been left inside the walls, as in the case of the city of Metz.24 The city fortifications, nevertheless, certainly remained important as a refuge for the population outside its walls in times of danger.25 Warfare, military threat, and fear of armed violence thus did leave traces in the landscape that allow one to locate and study comparable mentioned in Dorestad (Cont. 6), Disbargum (=Duisburg?; LHF 5), Zülpich (ibid. 38), Melun (ibid. 37), near Annegray (Jon., Col. 1.6), near Luxeuil (ibid. 1.10), Vallore (Greg., Hist. 3.13), Vitry (ibid. 3.14), Lavolautrum (Greg., Patr. 4.2), Avallon (Jon., Col. 1.20), Renève (LHF 40), Dijon (Greg., Patr. 7.3; Greg., Hist. 3.19), Luco (=Le Luc ?; Cypr., Caes. 2.18). 15 The sources mention city walls in Cologne (LHF 38), Metz (Fred. 2.60), Laon (Cont. 3), Autun (Pass. Leud. 2, 22), Lyon (Act. Aun. 4, 14), Bordeaux (Aus., Ordo 14), Toulouse (ibid. 12), Avignon (Fred. 3.23, 3.85), Arles (Fred. 2.60, speaking of a siege), Narbonne (Aus., Ordo 13; Sid., Carm. 23). See also the discussion in Knight (2007), 28–38. 16 Such castra are recorded for Dijon, Brioude, and Trier. Loseby (1998), 251. 17 See Demandt (1998), 227. 18 Loseby (1998), 249. 19 Petrikovits (1971), 89. These walls were not of low quality, see Knight (2007), 27 and 31–34. Cf. Johnson (1983), 69–74. 20 See ibid., 71–2. 21 See Sid., Carm. 23. 22 Loseby (1998), 250. See also idem (2006), 89; Johnson (1983), 70, fig. 77. 23 See Gauthier (1997), 50. 24 Loseby (1998), 250. 25 ibid., 251. See also Comminges and Nîmes, Greg., Hist. 7.34, 8.30.



archaeological and written evidence51

events beyond what is known from written sources. However, the interpretations of these remains are often problematic, not least as they rarely tell anything about the exact circumstances that led to their appearance, and thus often leave researchers with a wide range of possible scenarios. 1.2. Personal Remains Most personal belongings from fifth to seventh-century Gaul have been found in so-called row graves. These inhumation burials had become increasingly common since the later fourth century, and they could include weapons, accessories like belts or buckles, adornment like fibu­ lae, and tableware.26 These survivals of ancient attire and military equipment have attracted the attention of researchers for a long time.27 Funeral practices involving burying of the dead with objects like vases or coins were already common in Roman times. However, this custom had ceased in the mid-fourth century,28 i.e. shortly before the habit of furnishing the dead with adornment and weaponry emerged.29 This latter custom was more common in the sixth and seventh centuries than in the fifth,30 and it was mainly prevalent in north-western Europe. This is why it is difficult to make conclusions beyond this region or to compare these findings to the written testimony, mainly composed until the sixth century (as argued in the subsequent sections) in the more southern parts of Gaul, where (stone) sarcophagi were prevalent. These burials appear to point out to a relation between the defunct and the military.31 In the course of the seventh century, these objects deposed in row-graves became fewer and more standardised.32 Members of the elite, in particular, then were increasingly buried ad sanctos, either in or around a church,33 or inside the premises of a private rural foundation.34 26 See figure 1. See Fehr (2008), 76–7; Effros (2003, Mortuary), 71–118; Theuws/Alkemade (2000), 404–11; Steuer (1968); Werner (1950), 23–32. 27 See Böhme (2008), 96–8); Effros (2005), 207. See also Vencl (1984), 126–7. 28 An average of ¾ of these Gallo-Roman graves contain and coins. In Merovingian times, they are only found in 16% of the burials, and they are now of rather mediocre qua­ lity. Young (1997), 20–2, figs. 2–4. Cf. Fehr (2008), 77; Derks/Jefferis (1998), 51. 29 Cf. also the comprehensive survey by Theuws (2009), 285–90. 30 Siegmund (2000), 178–9. 31 See Effros (2002, Caring), 2–3. 32 Halsall (2003), 72; Brather (2008, Kleidung), 254. It is unlikely that these changes are linked with the spread of Christianity, see Effros (2005), 196; (2002, Caring), 205–6. In Carolingian times, a defunct’s weapons were hung above a saint’s tomb. Meyer (2005), 39. 33 Effros (2002, Caring), 151–6. 34 Effros (2003, Mortuary), 211–17.

52

chapter three

Figure 1. Burial findings from Alach, Germany, including francisca, spatha, ango, shield buckle and lance point. Grave 1/1981. Second half of the sixth century. Menghin/Périn (1997), 289, fig. 227, cat. V.5.15. Location in and image courtesy of the Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen Mannheim.



archaeological and written evidence53

Although, or perhaps because, these graves have been the subject of intense debate over the last few decades, opinions in regard to questions related to the deceased’s identity and their relatives’ motivation in furnishing these graves could not be more divergent. These burials have been considered to be the remains of non-Romans from east of the Rhine, of mainly members of the Roman army, either of primarily barbarian origin or of both descent, of Romans, or as the remains of bagaudae.35 It has also been consistently suggested that the specific ethnic provenance of a deceased can be deduced by means of these burial findings.36 These remains were not prevalent in regions beyond the imperial frontiers. They appeared almost exclusively in north-western Europe, and thus were not a generalised Roman phenomenon.37 This is why it is currently assumed by a majority of researchers, as indicated above, that they are a specific characteristic of a particular north-western frontier population.38 In fact, it seems very likely that the special situation at the northEuropean borders, generated by a comparably early and intense contact between a Romanised and a non-Roman population, led to an earlier acculturation of both groups, which indeed could have engendered a fairly independent cultural identity. More recently, G. Halsall, F. Theuws and M. Alkemade argued, contrary to previous assumptions, that sword graves were found in these regions more particularly where political power had been contested on a local or regional scale, and where thus no powerful lord had established his rulership.39 They thus conclude that these burials must have been directly related to these struggles for power and prestige, and this independently of any ethnic provenance.40 According to G. Halsall, these burials containing armament and items of attire were more Roman than Germanic.41 Through this, he inverts the 35 Non-Romans: Siegmund (2000), 174; Böhme (1998), 34–5; (1974), 165–6 and 185; Seillier (1993), 187; Werner (1973), 326. Mainly members of the Roman army: Vallet (1993), 252. Primarily barbarian origin: Böhme (2008), 96–8. Of both descent: Fehr (2008), 87; Whittaker (1993), 292; Böhme (1986), 49. Romans or bagaudae: Halsall (1992, Reihengräberzivilisation), 205–6. See also Theuws (2009), 285–90; Theuws/Alkemade (2000), 460. 36 Périn (1995), 252–3; Whittaker (1993), 293. This thesis has been questioned i. a. by Theuws/Alkemade (2000), 446; Lebedynsky (2001), 8. On fibulae as ethnic identifier, see also Böhme (1998), 32–5. 37 See Fehr (2008), 88. 38 Fehr (2010), 788; (2008), 98; Theuws/Alkemade (2000), 401–76; Young (1997), 15–42. Halsall (1992, Reihengräberzivilisation), 207. 39 Halsall (2008), 110; (1992, Reihengräberzivilisation), 196–207; Theuws/Alkemade (2000). See also the summary and discussion in Fehr (2010), 763–8. 40 Theuws/Alkemade (2000), 464–7; Halsall (1992, Reihengräberzivilisation), 207. 41 Halsall (1992, Reihengräberzivilisation), 204.

54

chapter three

previous argumentation by underlining that the custom of furnishing burials was no part of barbarian tradition, but a means to prove political Romanness, which by then had become crucial to enforce local power.42 F. Theuws recently suggested that these weapons were primarily supposed to provide protection and thereby soon had become a new means to claim land, by creating what he refers to as ‘protecting ancestors’.43 There is also little agreement as to why goods were deposited in these graves. Possible explanations vary from arrangements made in the context of pagan ideas on the afterlife to an assumed legal necessity produced by contemporary legislative issues,44 from supposed customs to demonstrate social status45 to being a means for important families to display wealth and social status in order to re-assert one’s standing in the context of local or regional struggles for power.46 However, these arms could also have been deposed to protect the deceased,47 as a last sign of appreciation, or simply because they had belonged to the dead person. A similar lack of agreement remains in regard to the explanation for the gradual disappearance of this same custom at the turn of the eighth century. Here, the suggested explanations vary from this custom having been abandoned due to the successful expansion of Christianity48 to it having ceased to be required after the local elite had established its power and thus no longer needed to prove its elevated status, which was now foremost acquired by birth.49 Depending on the approach taken, weapon graves, nonetheless, do represent a potentially valuable source of information, whether it is to estimate the proportion of armed men in Roman and subsequent society, or to study their social status, local competitions for power, or the importance attributed to military status. There has been disagreement also on such matters as the percentage of graves that had initially been furnished with weapons, and whether if, and to what extent, their number or proportion reflect the contemporary distribution of armed and unarmed members in society.50 Furthermore, 42 Halsall (2008), 110–1117. Similar: Effros (2002, Caring, 1–2). See also the comments in Brather (2008, Zusammenfassung), 434–6. 43 Theuws (2009), 308–14. 44 See the elder theory of ‘Heergewäte’ and ‘Gerade’, Werner (1973), 327, and the critical summary by Effros (2002, Caring), 41–3; (2003, Mortuary), 77–9. 45 See Martin (1993), 395. 46 Theuws/Alkemade (2000), 401–76; Halsall (1992, Reihengräberzivilisation), 205–7. 47 See also Effros (2005), 206. 48 See the summary in Effros (2003, Mortuary), 85–6. 49 Steuer (1997), 282; (1989), 122. Similar B. Effros (2003, Mortuary), 130. 50 See Steuer (1968), 23–4; 31. See also Effros (2003, Mortuary), 132–3; (2002, Caring), 3–4.



archaeological and written evidence55

it remains dubious whether military grave furniture always proves that the deceased had fought with these weapons when alive.51 It is possible that contemporary criteria for burying a relative with armament were more independent of the latter’s previous function in society. This is best illustrated by a few lavish infant burials, as one found in Cologne, where a boy was buried in the late 530s. They comprise arms in a child-adapted size that – if at all – could only have been utilised for training purposes, alongside adult armoury that is too heavy for a child to make use of. These weapons thus could never have been used by the deceased child in an armed confrontation.52 This suggests that not every object placed next to a body necessarily belonged to or had been used by this individual while alive.53 Furthermore, it seems also unlikely that the deceased were always buried with all their possessions, nor with their complete set of weaponry, considering not least that these objects were important valuables54 and thus a potential bequest for the following generation. Moreover, as the study on Anglo-Saxon burials by H. Härke has shown, the deposition of weapons could not necessarily be linked to the function of the deceased person as a warrior, as the analysed burials i.a. only rarely contained a complete set of armament required for combat.55 Many efforts to define the social status of a deceased person, by consi­ dering his burial furniture, have likewise proven to be void. Attempts to define the social status, as known from contemporary legal regulations, by means of an analysis of specific combinations of armament deposed in burials have proven to be particularly difficult.56 M. Martin, for example, suggests that the deposition of a short scramasax, a weapon that is often found in Roman burials, either by itself or together with other basic armament like an axe, might indicate the defunct’s low social status.57 Most modern researchers on related topics, however, have abandoned the idea that a person’s specific status could be defined by means of his burial furniture. They only use these pieces of evidence to specify who might have belonged to a social elite, by considering high value and sophisticated 51 That weapons referred to military activity appears natural in Krefeld-Gellep, situated next to a Roman castellum, see Pirling (1997), 81–4. See also Böhme (2008), 80 and 96–7. 52 See Effros (2003, Mortuary), 124–5; Hauser (1997), 449–50; Ottinger (1974), 405; Werner (1973), 331. 53 See Effros (2005), 206; (2003, Mortuary), 94 and 120–7. Cf. Böhme (2008), 85. 54 Cf. Lex Rib. 40.11. Similar Effros (2003, Mortuary), 93; Theuws/Alkemade (2000), 427. 55 See Effros (2003, Mortuary), 95 and 125; Siegmund (2000), 293–6; Härke (1990), 43. 56 See Siegmund (2000), 175–8; Steuer (1968), 30 and 40–57. See also Werner (1973), 329- 30). See also the comments in Schumacher (1999), 83. 57 Martin (1993), 397.

56

chapter three

grave goods.58 That a tomb could reflect a person’s elevated status in society is already suggested by Gregory of Tours, who underlined by referring to the tomb of the senator Helarius from Dijon, which was sculptured from Parian marble, that his sepulchre showed “what sort of man he was and what his status was according to the ranking of this world.”59 The presence of objects used in the context of mounted military or of angones, spears that are only mentioned by the Byzantine Agathias and that differed from others by their long metal pole and barbed hook, are found almost exclusively in lavish burials, and thus may also indicate elitist status.60 On the other hand, considering the prevalence of unfurnished graves in Gaul, lack of burial furniture does not prove lower or even unfree descent.61 Despite the difficulties referred to above, furnished burials are most significant to this investigation, not least as they seem to confirm the importance of military status and a comparably high prevalence of wea­ ponry in late- and post-Roman society. Burial rites apparently provided a convenient opportunity to display military functions and power. First and foremost, this new custom shows that, at least in north-western Europe, a significant percentage of men and women were remembered by their relatives as fighters.62 It is here that one can more tangibly understand a significantly changed society, which now credited an augmented valorisation to those who fought and the world of warriors, and this regardless of any specific interpretation attributed to the findings in furnished burials. 1.3. Inscriptions and Depictions The last body of material evidence relevant to the present study comprehends inscriptions and illustrations found on a large variety of material like coins, attire, or stone. Representations of military men, as found on Trajan’s column in Rome,63 were very common in Antiquity, even if, as

58 See already Werner (1973), 330. 59 Qui qualis quantusque fuerit iuxta saeculi dignitatem, sepulchrum eius hodie patefecit, quod marmore Phario sculptum renitet. Greg., Conf. 41, p. 774. Transl. Van Dam (1988, Glory), 33. 60 Agath., Hist. 2.5. See also Theune-Grosskopf (2007), 239; Werner (1973), 334 and 338. See also the critical discussion in Effros (2003, Mortuary), 128. 61 See Effros (2003, Mortuary), 125–7. 62 See Siegmund (1997) underlining that “[m]ag der gelebte Alltag des Mannes auch anders ausgesehen haben, im Tod zeigte er sich als Krieger” (p. 700). See also Steuer (1989), 122; Halsall (2003, Writes), 64–5. 63 On Trajan’s column see, for example, Coarelli (2000).



archaeological and written evidence57

T. Hölscher recently underlined, Greek art highly valuated the body and its physical strength, whereas Roman art was primarily interested in depicting superior technical skill and a rather static dignity.64 Since the fifth century, however, comparable representations were rare in northwestern Europe. Only very few human representations, and even less depictions of armed men, are known from late fifth to seventh century Gaul and its surrounding areas. The few Merovingian representations of a human still surviving appear in a religious context, and thus, if at all, refer indirectly to the secular world. Beyond this, they are rather ambiguous for interpretation, not least as they do not equal previous pieces of art in any regard. A well-known example is a portrait of a man engraved on a fune­ rary stele found near Niederdollendorf in Germany. The figure holds a sax in his left hand, and he apparently combs his hair with his right. He is surrounded by a snake-like creature. A flask has been placed on his right hand side. On the back of the stone is another male figure, which has a nimbus around his head. The figure stands above a snake-like creature and it holds a spear in his right hand. Although both pictures contain elements that, in all likelihood, refer to pre-Christian ideas, the latter is generally understood to represent Christ, whereas the man on the front is believed to represent the deceased himself. The exact interpretation of elements like the combing or the snake-like creature, and the flask, however, remain uncertain.65 Decorated belt-buckles are the best known part of Roman military and Merovingian attire.66 They also bear several human depictions. Belts with chip-carved buckles seem to have been primarily awarded by the Roman army to its soldiers, as they are frequently found in military burials,67 whereas polychrome buckles have been recently associated with a military elite that was no longer affiliated to the Roman army.68 Although most of them are only decorated with more or less simple lined designs, some bear more elaborated representations, including human figures. They are often accompanied by two or more animals or mystic crea­ tures,  like gryphons.69 The interpretation of some recurrent motives is 64 Hölscher (2003), 8. 65 See figures 2 and 14. See Schutz (2001), 178–9; Menghin/Périn (1997, vol. 2), pp. 741 and 1024–1025, figs. 608–609, and cat. IX.1.12, 1024–1025; Schienerl (1990); Salin (1959), 402; Böhme (1944–50). 66 See Sommer (1984); Fehr (1999), 105. See also Werner (1977), 275–351. 67 Böhme (2008), 89–90. 68 Halsall (2008), 1113. See also (2008), 85. 69 Gryphoi might go back to oriental origins, Holmquist (1939), p. 286, fig. 5.

58

chapter three

Figure 2. Front picture of the grave stone found in Niederdollendorf, NordrheinWestfalen, Germany. It shows a male figure in a tunic combing his hair. His belt holds a sax. A flask is on his right hand side. He is surrounded by a snake-like creature. Late seventh century. Limestone. Dim.: 42.5 × 22.5-25.5 × 16.5-19.5 cm. Menghin/Périn (1997), 741, fig. 608, cat. IX.1.12. Location in and image courtesy of the Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen Mannheim.



archaeological and written evidence59

facilitated by a comparably large number of examples bearing different variations of the same. In rare cases, an inscription is also added to the illustration. In Burgundy, 22 bronze belt-buckles with Latin inscriptions have been discovered.70 Human figures have also been found on brooches, phalerae, and bracteates.71 The latter term refers to small round engraved metal pendants with motives that often go back to those embossed on earlier Roman coins.72 Rare human portrayals have also been preserved on signet rings, most prominently on a ring found in a grave in Tournai. Its inscription explicitly mentions a King Childeric, and thus, beyond reasonable doubts, refers to the father of King Clovis I.73 The largest number of human representations has been found on coins. Although the purpose of these engravings primarily was to guarantee the value of the metal they were embossed onto, which was generally done by a political authority, they were also a convenient means for the same to propagate information, values, and/or ideas that represented, or were expected to strengthen, the latter’s power.74 From the fifth century onwards, however, these coins gradually lost their stately character, as they were more and more frequently issued by members of different parts of the nobility.75 Since the late fifth century, they also lost most of their fiscal, military, and administrative significance.76 In the following century, gold and, to a lesser extent, silver coins became prevalent, while bronze coins virtually disappeared.77 P. Grierson and M. Blackburn have defined three phases in the evolution of Merovingian coinage: the first (ca. 500- ca. 560/87) was characterised by mainly pseudo-imperial, i.e. Byzantine, gold solidi and tremisses, with a Victory as a reverse type. In the second phase (ca. 587-ca. 670), mainly ‘national’ tremisses coinage, of slightly reduced weight, were issued, which often bear the mint’s name and a cross on the reverse. In the third phase (ca. 670 to the early eighth century), mainly silver deniers were distributed.78 In the course of the subsequent decades, and until the end of the Merovingian age, these coins 70 Werner (1977), 323, and fig 27. 71 See the bracteate in figure 9 and the phalera in figure 5. 72 Axboe (2004), 144 and 207–8. 73 See figure 3. See also Richter (2004, Siegelring), 359–366. 74 See particularly Theudebert’s message in his gold solidi bearing his own portrait, Ewig/Nonn (2001), 40. Cf. Origo Lango. 4; Paul., Hist. 1.21; Greg., Hist. 3.20. Cf. ibid. 3.32. 75 See King (1992), 184–195. 76 Hendy (1988), particularly 37 and 72. 77 King (1992), 185. On rare copper coins issued in Marseille, see Brenot (1980), 182. 78 Grierson/Blackburn (1986), 90–1. For a good general survey, see ibid. pp. 44–6, 74–7, and 81–154. Cf. also Le Gentilhomme (1940), 131–47.

60

chapter three

Figure 3. Signet ring bearing the inscription CHILDERICI REGIS. The king is pictured with long hair, a cuirass, and holding a spear in his right hand. Late fifth century. Found in Tournai. Location: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz. Courtesy of Dr. Ute Klatt.

thus gradually gained an essentially non-royal character. They became mainly local productions that often included the monogram of the mint, but not that of the king in power, even though they still kept on imitating current Byzantine models.79 Nevertheless, royal monograms simultaneously became more common on contemporary coinage after 511.80 1.4. Summary Although archaeology is a difficult source for a student of an ancient world of thought, material evidence is invaluable. This is particularly true in regard to a study on past ideas and thinking patterns on war and those 79 Grierson/Blackburn (1986), 91. See also the quasi-imperial coinage issued in the Provence, possibly by the patricius in function. See Uhalde (2002), 142–4. 80 Le Gentilhomme (1940), 131–4.



archaeological and written evidence61

who fought, as this aspect is among those documented best by material remains. They complement, and sometimes explain, what remains hidden by the written record, or help to detect contradictions. The most important benefit that emanates from archaeology, however, is that it allows seeing beyond what an individual had once decided, for one reason or another, to convey in writing. Material remains represent a source of information that should be ignored even less in the context of a study on a subject that was so controversial for those who set up a large majority of the available written testimony. They allow the researcher to know better this past world, as they provide information on aspects that often remain unrecorded and uncommented by contemporary writers. The remains of the many every-day artefacts, found in countless burials discovered all over north-western Europe, thus provide an invaluable insight into late Roman and Merovingian society, which can be looked at from a point-of-view that preserves some independence from the written testimony. The same is true in regard to the few known inscriptions and depictions, which allow to see this ancient world a little bit less dependent on the writings of a quasi-exclusively Christian elite. 2. The Written Sources – Authors and Intentions The primary source of information for this investigation is the written testimony. The scope of textual evidence that needs consideration is defined by the subject of this study. This includes every work composed between the fifth and the seventh centuries by authors who originated from, or who at least lived and wrote in, Gaul and its adjacent regions. To historians, these sources are more valuable, the smaller the temporal distance is between their time of composition and the occurrences they refer to. In the framework of any study on an ancient world of thought, however, they only testify for their time of composition.81 In order to be able to compare the results to the situation in the previous century, the few indigenous fourth-century writings82 have also been taken into account. The aim of the following section is to give a short outline of this comparatively large amount of written testimonies and their authors, by 81 Compare the methodology suggested by Sprandel (1972), 21. 82 The only relevant more extensive sources composed in fourth-century Gaul, alongside the writings of Hilary of Poitiers, Ausonius of Bordeaux, and Sulpicius Severus, have been penned by Ammianus Marcellinus and Julian the Apostate, which both originated from the East and only spent a very short time of their life in north-western Europe.

62

chapter three

concentrating first and foremost on their respective points of view face to (contemporary) warfare and the world of warriors. For this reason, the following survey will be limited to more extensive compositions and collections that contain references to the subject of this study,83 and that can be related to one or few authors – even if anonymous. Legal texts and isolated small works, such as detached letters or poems, have been excluded from this survey. This does not mean that they have not been examined for the subsequent investigation. In consideration of the fact that every type of source is characterised by a different evolution throughout these three centuries, that different types of writing aim at different audiences, and that they tend to shed their specific light on the topics they deal with, especially if these subjects are as controversial as war and violence,84 which all together entails that it is impossible to compare the contents of two sources without considering their respective type, the following sections are structured according to the source genres available. As different works from a same author did not necessarily convey the same ideas and convictions, which may have changed over time85 and were generally adapted according to the type of text and the audience an author intended to reach, the suggested procedure to discuss each piece of work together with similar sources allows concentrating more on aspects relevant for the following investigation and carries the advantage that works of different genres, but from a same author, can be discussed by taking into account the different nature of each work, but without having to repeatedly insist on it. Full references to editions and translations of each source are provided in the bibliography. 2.1. Fifth-Century Responses to the Crisis Several poetic writings have been composed in Gaul shortly after the socalled barbarian inroads of the winter of 406/7. A majority was written in the south.86 They generally portray a country whose inhabitants had lived in a state of comparable peace until overrun by a terrible storm of cruel violence and misery. The largely newly converted Christian authors leave the impression that, for them, this dramatic experience was a shock that made them contest their world as it was, a state of fact that thus needed 83 Several writings virtually do not refer to the contemporary world, as Vincent of Lérins’ Commonitorium, or Victricius of Rouen’s De laude sanctorum. 84 Cf. Halsall (1998), 4–6. 85 R. Sprandel (1972) is certainly right to underline that “[j]eder Mensch wandelt seine Einstellungen im Laufe des Lebens” (p. 17). 86 See foremost Roberts (1992), 97–106.



archaeological and written evidence63

explanation. The supposed unspiritual ways of life of a large number of Romans soon emerged as one popular explanation, which means that many authors assumed that God had punished mankind for disregarding His divine directives. What had happened was thus construed to be a divine warning, through which God was supplicating man to change his ways of living and turn towards the life of humility propagated by the Bible. However, not every contemporary was as impressed by what had happened as these few known authors. The anonymous Sancti Paulini Epigramma, which was written only shortly after these barbarian incursions,87 addressed the part of society considered decadent. The poem was composed as a dialogue between a young man and an older monk, who described the situation caused by the barbarians to his respondent, subsequently discussing possible causes and consequences of the violence he had experienced. By considering these events as a divine appeal for a changed way of life, it is not a physical threat but the inner enemy, i.e. the weakness not to refrain from physical and material pleasures and comforts,88 that is argued to have been the major danger to man. However, the poet deplores that until his own days “neither sword, nor the threat of famine, nor disease, has made any difference”89 in this regard. The same set of ideas is contained in Orientius’ Commonitorium, which underlines that, in consideration of the fact that “[a]ll Gaul was filled with the smoke of a single funeral pyre”,90 people should turn their minds and ambitions away from the worldly life by seeking their reward in the other world, and thereby avoid divine punishment.91 The Carmen de providentia Divina, a poem possibly composed by Prosper of Aquitaine around 416/7,92 testifies as an eye witness how barbarians treated the local population. The author relates how Gaul was overrun by war and violence to become a “smoking fatherland”,93 when “destructive fire and rain have even taken away the 87 Roberts (1992), 97. Cf. Griffe (1956), 187–94; Schmitz (1958), 308, fn. 81. Cf. Alessandro (2000), 97–167; Smolak (1999), 3–20; (1989), 205–12. 88 […] occultior hostis. Paul., Epigr. l. 17, p. 504. Cf. Schmitz (1958), 141. 89 […] nil gladius, nil dira fames, nil denique morbi/ egerunt, Paul., Epigr. ll. 30–1, p. 504. Transl. M. Roberts (1992), 98. 90 […] una fumauit Gallia tota rogo, Orient. 2, l. 184, p. 234. Transl. M. Roberts (1992), 97. 91 See felix qui licitum finem putat esse laborum,/ quod, post ne timeat, cauerit ante timens. Orient. 2, ll. 255–6, p. 237. See also ibid. 2, ll. 1–88 and ll. 263–273. 92 Chadwick (1955), 122. See also Courcelle (1964), 96–8. On his life and work, see Gen., Viri. 84; Hwang (2009); Muhlberger (1990), 48–135. The year 416/7 is suggested by the words caede decenni, Paul., Carm. l. 33, col. 618. Cf. Roberts (1992), 101. 93 […] partiae subiit fumatis imago, Prosp., Carm. l. 17, col. 617. Transl. M.P. McHugh (1964), 261.

64

chapter three

buildings on the farms.”94 The author also recounts how he had been captured by some Goths and how he was forced to march with them, walking between their wagons. According to him, the country had been finally left in desolation, with abandoned homes, destroyed buildings, and neglected fields. And just as the two authors just mentioned, he underlines that contemporaries’ practice of sin had been the tinder to the torches that caused these devastations, a fact that – according to him – should therefore be deplored most.95 In the same year, Rutilius Claudianus Namatianus, who in all likelihood had not yet converted to Christianity, composed a poem entitled De reditu suo.96 This poem mainly contains an exceptional description of a recent or current, and apparently well documented, journey by the author, parting from Rome to reach Gaul by ship, and thereby avoiding the bad state of the roads.97 Shortly before this voyage, major parts of his family estate in Gaul had been devastated, whereupon his relatives had called him to return back home from Italy, possibly to help rebuild what had been destroyed.98 In the year 459, the 83-year-old Paulinus of Pella composed his Eucharisticus, which also documents how “peace was broken.”99 His ancestral villa, just as his home city of Bordeaux, had been pillaged and subsequently burned, while he and his family were captured. According to his testimony, he and his mother had been lucky enough to be finally freed and they could escape to another owned estate in the district of Bazas. Here, however, they suffered a second siege.100 The same situation in Gaul instigated another anonymous author to address a poem to his wife, known today under the title Poema conjugis ad uoxorem.101 The author beseeches his partner to join him by taking leave of the  94 […] quod fundorum aedes vis abstulit ignis et imbris. Prosp., Carm. l. 31, col. 617. Transl. McHugh (1964), p. 261.  95 Captured by Goths, see: Prosp., Carm.. ll. 57–9, col. 618; desolation: ibid. ll. 913–14; practice of sin: ibid. ll. 915–68.  96 The date of 416/7 is indicated in Rut. 1, l. 135, cf. Vessereau/Préchac (1961), xii. See also Cameron (1967), 31–9; Chadwick (1955), 126–33; Pichon (1906), 243–69. That he was not yet Christianised emerges from lack of references to Christian and the prominence of references to pagan Roman beliefs, see Rut. 1, ll. 617–76, ll. 233–6, ll. 363–4, ll. 372–6.  97 Rut., 1, ll. 37–42.  98 Ibid. 1, ll. 19–28. Cf. ibid. 1, ll. 29–30.  99 […] temporibus ruptae pacis. Paul., Euchar. l. 238, p. 322. Transl. H.G.E. White (1985), 325. Cf. pax abiit terris, Poema l. 30, p. 345. On his life and work, see McLynn (1995), 461–86; White (1985), 295–303; Courcelle (1964), 92–6. 100 Home pillaged: Paul., Euchar., ll. 283–90 and l. 330; release from captivity: ibid., ll. 314–20; second siege: ibid. ll. 331–3. 101 Once more, Prosper of Aquitaine might be the author of this composition, see Courcelle (1964), 85. See also Roberts (1992), 99–101.



archaeological and written evidence65

secular world and to start living a devoted life.102 Paulinus of Nola, originally from Gaul, also advocated in his various poems the inner fight for faith and against sin, which he considered the most important battle to be fought by man.103 The threat and violence these authors reportedly experienced was a shock that had been significant enough to have become an important turning point in the personal lives of some of them. The impact of these events is best documented by the fact that these authors apparently considered it less important to describe than to interpret what had happened,  which confirms that they must have been deeply disturbed by them. A majority of these authors tried to explain and understand these events in their very Christian ways by assuming that God must have had a reason to allow this to happen. As they were most concerned with convincing their contemporaries to comply to the presumed will of God, rhetoric overstatements were inevitable. These testimonies thus not necessarily represent mere literary constructs, as historians like I.N. Wood have suggested.104 The set of ideas that underlies the supposition that God punishes his flock, for failing to live a pious life, was elaborated by those born at the time of the early fifth-century invasions. This generation composed comparably long treaties to investigate this and related questions. Just as many earlier poets, these authors were devoted Christians, among which a majority was affiliated, at one time or another, to the elite monastery situated on the Mediterranean island of Lérins.105 Among them was Eucherius of Lyons. In his essays, of which De contemptu mundi, De Laude heremi, the Formulae, and his Passio Agaunensium martyrum are known best, he consistently underlined the importance of living a pious life. Although only implicitly, his writings deal at several occasions with the early fifth-century situation in Gaul. Just as in the case of some of the early poets, his attitude towards contemporary events was based on the conviction that life was only transitory, which implies that it was absurd to seek material or physical pleasures.106 As a consequence, a man aiming to 102 See Poema, l. 100 and ll. 115–16. See also ibid. l. 43 and l. 103. 103 See Paul., Carm. 9, ll. 60–7; 15, ll. 95–108; ll. 140–52; 16, ll. 245–50; 26 passim. On his life and work, see Trout (2000); Duchesne (1996), 172–4; Walsh (1988), 3–27. 104 See I.N. Wood (1992), arguing that “[t]he responses of Orientius and Salvian, like those of Sidonius, Ruricius and Avitus, are, however, not mere reflections of reality, they are literary constructs” (p. 12). Similar Drinkwater/Elton (1992), 106; cf. ibid. 99. See also the discussions in McLynn (2009); Whittaker (2004), 51. Roberts (1992, 100) and Courcelle (1964, 85) argue in favour of a certain degree of authenticity of these testimonies. 105 Wood (1992), 10; cf. Duchesne (1996), 194–221. 106 See Eucherius’ argumentation in Euch., Cont. ll. 306–14. ll. 589–92, ll. 604–8, ll. 652–7.

66

chapter three

reach eternal glory, according to him, should primarily fight his own weaknesses.107 This includes refraining from waging war, which is consi­ dered a shameful act of violence.108 A comparable position was held, a century later, by Caesarius of Arles. Among his theological works, two regulae, 238 sermons, and some letters are still extant. He also advocated for the battle against the self and against physical violence in the context of worldly warfare by referring to the transitory character of worldly achievements, including victory in battle.109 Beyond that, he consistently emphasised that, in order to reach salvation, it was indispensable to do good deeds and pay penance for sins committed.110 The best known advocate of a comparable position is Salvian of Marseilles. In his well-known De Gubernatione Dei, he demonstrated that God intervened actively in the world as man’s observer, judge, and executor.111 According to him, however, the opinion was widespread that the new God would reward conversions to Christianity, and that the converted should not be requested, beyond that, to undergo a complete changeover of their ways of living in order to comply to Christian values and regulations.112 The same author underlines that many among these were unable to become aware of God’s warnings, as they were primarily occupied with their worldly pleasures and affairs, and thus too spoilt to see the need for change or to do the requested good.113 Consequently, the misery that had come to them had to be considered as the deserved punishment for their lack of good will to obey their God.114 This is not that Salvian approved of violence; but it was a means whereby God could improve the morals of His people. Born in Trier or another Roman city near the Rhine, Salvian watched, still a boy, the capture and destruction of his native place and the killing of its citizens.115 Although Salvian, here and there, certainly generalised and exaggerated the extent of barbarian violence and Roman vices, the general impression left by his work still is that he must have been deeply impressed by what he had seen, and that 107 Euch., Form. 9, ll. 12–20. See also ibid. ll. 49–58. 108 See Euch., Cont. ll. 289–305; Euch., Acaun. 10. 109 Battle against the self: Caes., Serm. 35.1, 41.2, 43.8; transitory achievements: ibid. 43.8. On his life and work, see Klingshirn (1994, Life), ix-7; (1994, Making). 110 See, for example Caes., Serm. 10.3, 30.4, 32, 40, 41.4. 111 Salv., Gub. 1.6, 1.11, 2.1, 2.4, 5.8, 7.7, 7.8, 7.10, 7.12. 112 Salv., Gub. 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 5.10. Cf. ibid. 3.8–10, 4.12. Cf. Duchesne (1996), 196. 113 Worldly pleasures: Salv., Gub. 6.5, 6.8, 6.12. Cf. Rut. 1, ll. 201–2; need for change: see ibid. 6.7, 6.13; requested good: ibid. 2.6, 5.3. 114 Salv., Gub. 3.1, 4.12, 5.8, 6.13, 6.17, 7.7, 7.8. 115 Salv., Gub. 6.13, 6.14, 6.15. Cf. Caes., Serm. 70.2. See also Duchesne (1996), 195.



archaeological and written evidence67

this was the reason why he wanted to make this experience intelligible to his contemporaries, as well as to himself.116 2.2. Exchanges between the Powerful Letters and panegyrics were most convenient means to establish, expose, and maintain predominance and subordination, and thus were important types of writing in the context of power and authority. In addition, Latin panegyrics represented the type of source that tended to advocate most in favour of any sort of military virtue, and contemporary warfare, more in general, as their major aim was to laud a ruling authority for acts that were considered praiseworthy. Just as in the case of theological treatises, this entails that a number of elements were, to the least, slightly exaggerated, and that not everything said must have necessarily corresponded to the known facts.117 In the context of a study on ancient thought, nevertheless, this type of source has the advantage that they allow us to assess what contemporaries considered praiseworthy in a ruler’s acts, and what he stood for, as they knowingly aimed at providing a picture that was overall positive. The two most recent of overall twelve Latin panegyrics were written in the late fourth century by the praefectus praetorio Italiae, Africae et Illyrici Claudius Mamertinus and the African proconsul Latin(i)us Pacatus Drepanius. Neither author is clearly identifiable as a Christian nor as a pagan.118 These two panegyrics are dedicated to the emperors Julian and Theodosius, and they both picture a Roman emperor that was clearly, although not exclusively, defined by and praised for his martial virtues and skills.119 A comparable poem, entitled Gratiarum actio, was composed by the late-fourth-century rhetoric teacher and politician Ausonius of Bordeaux, who wished to thank the emperor Gratian for assigning a consulship to him.120 Ausonius, who had participated himself around the year 370 in an imperial military campaign,121 praised his emperor for his 116 Cf. Favez (1957), 78. J. Sarnowsky (2006, 597) argues by referring to St Augustine that the Church fathers must have been well aware of the horrors of war. 117 See Rees (2002), 6; Galletier (1955), 54. 118 On Claudius Mamertinus see Am. XXVI 5.5, on Pacatus Drepanius, CTh. IX 2.4 See als0 the introductions in Nixon/Rodgers (1994), 386–92, 437–47; Galletier (1955), 5–13, 48–63. 119 Mam., Paneg. 3, 4, 6, 8, 13; Pac., Paneg. 8, 10.3, 31.1–2; cf. ibid. 5. Cf. Galletier (1955), 55. 120 Aus., Grat. On his life and work, see White (2002), vii-xl; Booth (1982). See also White (1985). 121 See Drinkwater (1999), 443–52. This might not have been his first time, see his mention on having been in expeditione, in Aus., Griphus ternarii numeri, MGH AA 5.2, p. 129.

68

chapter three

bellicose abilities and achievements, and this without associating any negative connotation to contemporary warfare.122 His other work confirms his esteem for the world of war and heroes.123 In the fifth century, panegyrics were no more exclusively attributed to emperors.124 The best known examples are the compositions by Flavius Merobaudes. He apparently was a Frank by origin, but he was born in Gaul, which he left in later years to move to Spain and Italy.125 Just like Ausonius, he had been a member of the Roman army, and he is even known to have led, in 443 and as magister utriusque militia, a military body against the bagaudae.126 His two extant panegyrics127 contain quite differing attitudes towards the nature of war, which might also reflect a change in opinion regarding the waging of war in consequence of his own personal experience. In his first panegyric on his military commander Aëtius, probably delivered in 443 before the senate in Rome,128 the addressee is praised for his military qualities and skills without giving a negative picture of his military campaigns.129 In his second composition of 446, of which only 197 hexameters have survived, his praise on Aëtius’ martial virtues is rather limited.130 Aëtius is, if at all, complimented for having established peace, by his victorious battles, which ended the suffering and pain caused by war.131 Nevertheless, warlike qualities and success are not connotated negatively.132 The perception of contemporary warfare rendered in the panegyrical poetry set up a generation later by Sidonius Apollinaris133 contains aspects of both attitudes found in Merobaudes’ compositions. In his three panegyrics delivered in 456, 458, and 468 respectively,134 Sidonius praised his emperors Avitus, Majorian, 122 Aus., Grat. 2, 4, 11, 14. He still did not deny the fatal side of warfare, see ibid. 17. 123 See Aus., Mos. ll. 1–4, ll. 382, ll. 434–7; Epigr. 22, 52, or his adoption of epitaphia […] herorum, qui bello Troico interfuerunt, see Aus., Epitaphia 1, MGH AA 5.2, p. 72. 124 Clover (1971, Translation), 34. This is still true for later panegyrics, see for example the laudations on the nutricius Gogo (Fort., Carm. 7.1–4; cf. Greg., Hist. 5.46), the dux Lupus of Champagne (Fort., Carm. 7.7–9), the patricius Mummolus (ibid. 7.14; cf. Greg., Hist. 4.42), or the domesticus Conda (Fort., Carm. 7.16). 125 Clover (1971, Commentary), 7–10. 126 Hydat., Chron. a. 443. See also CIL 6.1724. 127 See Clover (1971, Understanding), 354- 67. 128 Clover (1971, Understanding), 354–367; cf. idem (1971, Commentary), 41. 129 See Merob., Paneg. 1, frag. I A ll. 16–20; frag. I B, ll. 2–10; frag. II B, ll. 9–24. 130 See Clover (1971, Commentary), 41; Born (1934), 30. 131 See Merob., Paneg. 2, ll. 1–3, ll. 9–22, ll. 35–9, l. 43, ll. 173–8, ll. 189–91. 132 See Merob., Paneg. 2, ll. 133–70. See also Clover (1971, Commentary), 41. 133 On his life and work, see Harries (1994); Anderson (1963); Stevens (1933). 134 Sid., Carm. 7 (Avitus); 5 (Majorian); 2 (Anthemius). When Sidonius composed his Panegyric on Avitus, he was probably no more than 25 years old. On the circumstances of



archaeological and written evidence69

and Anthemius for their military virtue, skill, and engagement,135 just as he did in regard to the accomplishments achieved by generals such as Ricimer.136 Further readings of his compositions, however, reveal that these skills were regarded as praiseworthy above all since the necessity to wage war had become undeniable to the author,137 who frequently referred to the precarious situation Roman society faced in Gaul.138 The only post-Roman panegyrical compositions known today are those set up one century later by the Italian poet Venantius Fortunatus, who addressed the kings and other important men and women.139 After a longer journey to Gaul,140 Fortunatus had decided to make a living there by offering his talent to the Merovingian rulers. His four panegyrical compositions were addressed to the Kings Charibert I, Sigibert I, Chilperic I and Childebert II.141 However, in opposition to the previous compositions, only two among these four explicitly venerated the addressed king for his martial skills and successes. The only king praised more extensively for his warlike virtues is Chilperic.142 He was lauded in the following manner: You rise all the higher with constant trials of arms. You are not broken by them; the effort itself makes you a master of war-craft. Through the multitude of your dangers, you become a stronger ruler  […] At one and the same time war looks upon you with favour, and learning grants you her abiding affection; you delight by your valiant courage in the former, by your learning in the latter. In both spheres you are wise; tested in arms and in law,  you are glorious as a warrior and resplendent in your law-giving.143

the composition of this laudation, see Kulikowski (2008), 335–52; Watson (1998); Sivan (1989). On the composition of the Panegyric on Majorian, see Rousseau (2000). 135 Sid., Carm. 2, ll. 382–4; 5, ll. 2–3; 7, ll. 314–19. 136 Sid., Carm. 2, ll. 377–80; ll. 352–5. 137 Sid., Carm. 2, ll. 235–42; 7, ll. 230–50. 138 See Sid., Carm. 7, ll. 46–49ff; ll. 298–303. 139 See Fort., Carm. passim. On his life and work, see Roberts (2009); Reydellet (1994), vii–lxxxix; George (1992); Brennan (1985). 140 Fort., Carm. 10.16.1. On his voyages to Gaul, see Reydellet (1994), viii-xiv. 141 Fort., Carm. 6.1, 6.1a (Sigibert); 6.2 (Charibert); 9.1 (Chilperic); 10.8 (Childebert II). Cf. George (1989), 8. On his panegyrics, see also George (1998); (1992), 35–61; Brennan (1992). 142 Fort., Carm. 9.1, l. 5; ll. 25–30; ll. 63–6; ll.70–8 ; ll. 99–102; l. 107; ll. 110–111. On the circumstances and purpose of this panegyric on Chilperic I, see George (1989), 5–18. 143 […] altior adsiduis crescis, non frangeris armis,/ et belli artificem te labor ipse facit./ fortior efficeris per multa pericula princeps, […]. cui simul arma favent et littera constat amore:/ hinc virtute potens, doctus et inde places./ inter utrumque sagax, armis et iure

70

chapter three

His brother Sigibert was merely addressed with the epithet victor144 and praised for his peace-bringing military successes against the Saxons and Thuringians.145 The same idea reappears in Fortunatus’ poem dedicated to Charibert, who was praised for having won peace by subduing his enemies with the help of his faith.146 Bellicose values or skills are virtually unmentioned in respect of Childebert II. This is unexpected as, although this king was younger than the other three at the time of the poem’s composition, he did not lack military experience. Perhaps the poet considered that lauding him for such deeds was inappropriate because of his youth; perhaps he did not do so because his military campaigns had been rather unsuccessful.147 All in all, the evolution in late Roman and Merovingian panegyrical compositions leaves the impression that contemporaries’ expectations regarding an ideal ruler’s representation, and the skills he was expected to perform, had shifted between the late fifth and the late sixth century towards a stronger emphasis on peace, which may have been the result of an on-going Christianisation of the concept of the ideal king. In opposition to the panegyrics, which were primarily dedicated to a superior by someone in his debt, letters were most of all characterised by a coequal quest for and maintenance of mutual friendship, as referred to by the Latin term amicitia.148 A majority of the letters still extant today had been published as collections, only a little time after their composition, either by their respective author or by a subsequent copyist. However, these letters must only correspond to a fraction of what once had been composed. The selective survival of these pieces of evidence is best documented by the fact that most correspondents known today were family related, or were at least acquainted with each other.149 They were prima­ rily members of the upper elite, and the content and language of their correspondence strongly reflects the education, interests, and values common to this particular group.150 The literary, and often stereotypical, probatus/ belliger hinc radias, legifer inde micas. Fort, Carm. 9.1, ll. 63–6, pp. 99–102 and 203–4. Transl. J. George (1995), 76–8. See also ibid. 9.1, l. 5, ll. 25–30, ll.70–8, l. 107, ll. 110–11. 144 Fort., Carm. 7.1A, l. 1. Cf. George (1992), 40. 145 Fort., Carm. 7.1A, ll. 7–16. See also George (1998), 41; Reydellet (1998), p. 51, n. 15. 146 Fort., Carm. 6.2, ll. 37–40. See also the discussions in Roberts (2009), 56–59; George (1998), 47. Cf. Greg., Hist. 4.16. On the significance of royal peace, see Kershaw (2011). 147 Childebert II lead his armies against his uncle Guntramn and the Lombards in Italy still a child, see Greg., Hist. 6.1, 6.31, 6.42. 148 On the concept amicitia, see Le Jan (2009); Epp (1999). See also Pancer (1996), 285. 149 Wood (1994, Kingdoms), 20; (1992), 10. 150 On the elitist character of these letters, see Amherdt (2004).



archaeological and written evidence71

character151 of these letters entails that their content often appears unsubstantial and artificial, which makes them a particularly difficult source of information for modern historians. One reason may be that these authors did not communicate critical information by transmitting them by letter. It appears as if, in most cases, they were delivered orally by the letter bearer, who was often explicitly recommended by the sending author.152 One of the few epistolary collections still extant today contains letters of the late-fifth-century bishops Faustus of Riez and Ruricius of Limo­ ges.153 Unfortunately, their writings mainly deal with spiritual subjects and thus only have a very limited relevance to this study. The world of war is only scarcely mentioned and touched, if at all, by means of metaphors used to illustrate spiritual issues.154 How little these works deal with the secular world or the contemporary political situation can be illustrated by using the example of Ruricius’ correspondence. Although many among his letters were addressed to family members and personal friends, they only scarcely and vaguely mention, if at all, what happened around him. The section where Ruricius refers most explicitly to a most recent political event that might have implied armed violence is contained in his letter to the bishop Aeonius, and is as follows: In order that he [the brother of a certain Possessor] renders his brother free of the enemy he prefers himself to be a captive of creditors, and in order that he not lose his life through a most cruel death, he himself has been made an exile from his home.155

Even major contemporary events, like the Frankish conquest of northern and central Gaul, were left virtually uncommented.156 This is less the case with the works of the bishop Paulinus of Nola, who was born in the middle of the fourth century in the region of Bordeaux.157 Although he strongly 151 See Ropert (1976), 50. 152 See Norberg (1991), 47. 153 On Faustus of Riez, see Duchesne (1996), 197, on the life and work of Ruricius of Limoges, see Mathisen (2002); (1999), 1–76. 154 For example contra Arrianas armare, Faust., Epist. 3, l. 15, p. 173; militare incipient ad salutam, ibid, ll. 1–2, p. 198; et quia militibus suis praecepit sermo divinus: cum, inquit, ad bellum processeris et inter reliquas praedas petieris virginem, ibid. 9, ll. 14–19, p. 213. 155 Qui ut fratrem ab hostibus redderet liberum, se creditorem maluit esse captiuum et, ut ille crudelissima morte non priuaretur uita, ipse extorris est factus e patria. Rur., Epist. 2.8, p. 383. Transl. R.W. Mathisen (1999), 146. More only in ibid. 2.15, ll. 24–9; 2.65, 442, ll. 6–8. 156 See Rur., Epist. 2.41, ll. 11–14, supposed by B. Krusch, MGH AA 8, lxv, to be an allusion to the battle of Vouillé. See also Mathisen (1999), p. 213, fn. 6. 157 On his life and letters, see Walsh (1988); Mratschek (2002).

72

chapter three

advocated against worldly, and foremost military, values and ways of living, and although he spoke most explicitly in favour of Christian virtues,158 his letters do contain more than mere images borrowed from the world of war.159 However, to him, military and any other secular career were only acceptable if approached in preparation for the challenges of a subsequent spiritual struggle.160 The rhetorician and late-fifth-century bishop of Clermont Sidonius Apollinaris was the first ecclesiastical author to propagate a more positive opinion on the secular career,161 which he obviously only left due to necessity. Many among his 147 letters, collected in eight books, had been composed while he had not yet been a member of the clergy, a time when he was particularly concerned about establishing and maintaining an impressive network of amici. Unsurprisingly, a larger number of his compositions were not primarily concerned with spiritual issues. His works contain more favourable depictions of martial virtues and exploits,162 which could also be a product of his allegiance to the secular elite. However, the sources do not allow us to estimate with any precision, when the senatorial elite, of which Sidonius was a member, gave up its detached attitude towards the military, as discussed in the previous sections. His later discussions of civil and military subjects, in particular, suggest that he knew what he was writing about, including the sorrow and suffering caused by armed violence, which he depicted with a liveliness that is only surpassed by earlier poetry or later chronicles.163 Further evidence of a re-evaluation of military matters can be found in the late-fifth to early-sixth century letters of Bishop Avitus of Vienne.164 His epistolary collection include several letters with hints to a more positive valuation of the military. This includes a higher concern for contemporary events,165 alongside expressions of care and affection directed towards members of military bodies, without containing any negative judgement of their occupation. In a letter addressed to his relative Apollinaris, for example, he wrote: 158 Against public services, see Paul., Epist. 8.3; cf. also ibid. 22.2. Against worldly warfare and in favour of the inner struggle, see ibid. 12.6, 13.16. 159 For metaphors comparable to the above see ibid. 1.9, 2.4, 4.2, 9.4, 13.21. 160 See, for example ibid. 18.7. 161 See Sid., Epist. II 1. 162 See ibid. III 3. 163 See ibid. III 4, V 3.1, V 12.1–2, VI 10.1–2, VII 1.1–3, VII 7.1. 164 On his life and work, see Shanzer/Wood (2002), 3–85. 165 See his comments on tactics during the siege of Vienne. Avit., Epist 50. Cf. Greg., Hist. 2.32 and Shanzer/Wood (2002), 326–7. See also his comments in Avit., Epist. 35, 37.



archaeological and written evidence73 After I received news of your departure, I hung in suspense for fear and trepidation, because I was receiving information from various quarters sta­ ting that you had all alike been mustered for war at the command of the masters whom you serve. […] But thanks be to God who has brought you and yours back safely in happiness to your homeland!166

Similar words were also addressed to the young Burgundian King Sigismund.167 Beyond this, Avitus did not only use metaphors relating elements of Christian faith to the military sphere to illustrate spiritual issues, as was frequently done by contemporary authors, but he also used them to raise and/or illustrate experiences made in the context of earthly warfare, as when he beseeched the young king who was preparing for war to “arm [his] missiles with prayers”.168 The collection containing the versifications composed by the Italian poet Venantius Fortunatus, the next compilation to be mentioned here, is not composed of letters, but of poetry. Its content and purpose, however, were virtually identical to those of a majority of the letters just mentioned, even if they were mainly addressed to or composed on behalf of personalities of regal or aristocratic rank. Just as in his panegyrics on his kings, he valued civil and military achievements as equal to spiritual acquire­ ments, not as mere ephemeral deeds. Many addressees were also expli­ citly lauded for their accomplishments in related fields of responsibility.169 This altered point of view is also reflected in a new valuation of those who fought earthly battles. More than Avitus of Vienne before him, he used metaphors for illustrative purposes, including references to the spiritual world that aimed at elevating military matters. However, he did not only refer to elements of this latter reality to illustrate religious ideas, as authors had done before him, he also used them to elevate spiritual achievements. This means that military men were now used as exemplary models to refer to or explain spiritual aims and ideals.170

166 Nam revera nuntio vestri discessus accepto in summo metu et trepidatione pependi­ mus; quia nobis diversis nuntiis decebatur vos dominorum, quibus observatis, accitu conctos pariter evocatos. […] Sed deo gratias, quia prospero reditu in laetitiam vestros vosque revoca­ vit in patriam. Avit., Epist. 24, p. 56. Transl. D. Shanzer and I.N. Wood (2002), 338. See also ibid. 50, 51, 92. 167 Avit., Epist. 45. 168 […] iacula vestra votis armate. Ibid. 45, l. 29, p. 74. Transl. D. Shanzer and I.N. Wood (2002), 235. See also his letter to the Frankish king Clovis, Epist. 46. 169 See, for example Fort., Carm. 7.7, 7.8. 170 See Fort., Carm. 3.30, ll. 15–18. Cf. fortia bella gerens quisquis cupit astra tenere,/rex dedit hos proceres milites esse duces. Ibid. 3.7, ll. 15–16, p. 57. See also his Vexilla regis (2.6) comparing the arrival of the Holy Cross to an imperial adventus. See George (1992), 38–9.

74

chapter three

Letters found in seventh-century collections, like the epistolary work of the missionary Columban the Younger or the contemporary bishop Desiderius of Cahors, once more only contain very few mentions to the secular world.171 Where they did refer to military men or related issues, this was mainly done by means of metaphors referring to secular warfare, and this foremost to illustrate spiritual issues, just as already done by previous authors.172 The epistolary work of Desiderius, composed in two books containing relatively short letters, are mostly addressed to his kings and contemporary ecclesiastical dignitaries, and they only rarely contain more explicit mentions of the secular world, as when he enunciates his wish to live in heaven with his fellow bishops in the palace of the heavenly king, just as he had previously done on earth.173 2.3. Chronicles and Histories Histories and chronicles are the source-types that deal most extensively with warfare and the world of war. Histories, which describe more or less chronologically what had happened in the past, were known in Europe since ancient Greek times, whereas the European chronicle, which only gradually emerged in Roman times from early Christian writings, was mainly composed as lists of dates and short notes. The best known early examples were composed by the Church fathers Eusebius and Jerome. Their aim was to trace back events relevant to religious history from the beginning of the world and until the end of all time.174 However, secular events were increasingly included in these lists, until subsequent compositions had lost their tabular character. In the seventh century, the chronicle had become similar to the History in regard to both form and content.175 The chronicle composed in 403 by Sulpicius Severus primarily aimed at proving the old age of the Christian faith.176 It was thus primarily concerned with religious and theological issues, and only deals with the secular world in an eschatological context.177 Chronicles composed after the 171 On Columban the Younger’s life and work, see Walker (1970), ix-lxxxii, on Desiderius of Cahors, see Poupardin (1900), i-xiv. 172 See haec arma, scutum et gladius, haec apologia. Col., Epist. 2.6, pp. 16–18. See also ubi enim durior pugna, ibi gloriosior invenitur corona. Ibid. 2.8, p. 20. 173 Desid., Epist. 1.11. Cf. Hen (2007), 106, although clerics wrote most preserved letters. 174 See S. Muhlberger (1990), 8–23. 175 On the difference between chronicles and histories, see Muhlberger (1990), 8. 176 De Senneville-Grave (1999), 17–18. On his chronicle, see ibid. 12; Weber (1997), 33. 177 See Weber (1999), 32–33 and 57–8.



archaeological and written evidence75

early fifth century inroads, however, cast new light on contemporary warfare and those who fought them. The Chronicle of Prosper of Aquitaine, for example, primarily deals with secular matters. In opposition to the assessment made by S. Muhlberger, according to whom this composition primarily aimed at emphasising the mistakes of the generals and usurpers characterised as “jealous, treacherous, murderous, and oppressors of the church” and thus as inferior to the spiritual,178 the chronicle does not contain fewer worldly than spiritual victories, and it does associate positive connotation to several current war-leaders. If at all, they are blamed for lacking skills and failures apparent in their ways to combat, but not for fighting worldly battles.179 The author’s Christian devotion is only perceptible where he denigrates warfare as soon as Christians had been particularly inflicted,180 or where he lauds those members of the military who had proved their appreciation for one of the Church’s representatives.181 Beyond this, only violence executed by barbarians is occasionally deprecated.182 An anonymous chronicle composed around the year 452 also lists military campaigns, but it now completely lacks critical remarks in regard to the waging of war as such.183 Only the general state of Gaul, as a result of the earlier fifth-century fighting, is explicitly lamented.184 More than a century later, Bishop Marius of Avenches composed a Chronicle with most remarkable singularities: it differed from earlier chronicles by the fact that its content is virtually restricted to secular history. Beyond this, and most strikingly, the very few ecclesiastical events it contains are now all characterised by having a negative connotation.185 The secular 178 Muhlberger (1998), 87–8. 179 References given to underline the superiority of the spiritual victory are rather inconclusive and best supported by Prosp., Chron. a. 452. Ibid. a. 394, a. 395 rather cast positive light on worldly victory. Usurper are always finally defeated, see ibid. a. 388, a. 411, a. 413, a. 415, a. 425. For positive characterisations of military men, see ibid. a. 422, a. 425, a. 428, a. 435, a. 436, a. 439, a. 450, a. 451. Negative character traits are foremost mentioned to explain what happened, see ibid. a. 384, a. 392, a. 427, a. 439, a. 442, a. 451. Critic of lacking military skills: ibid. a. 439. S. Muhlberger might have come to other conclusions, if the chronicle’s author were not supposed to be Prosper, see Muhlberger (1990), 127–35. 180 Prosp., Chron. a. 439. 181 Ibid. a. 439; a. 452. Cf. Muhlberger (1998), 88. 182 Prosp., Chron. a. 436. 183 On the chronicle, see Burgess (2001); Muhlberger (1990). The most critical statement is Bellum contra Burgundionum memorabile exarsit, quo universa paene gens cum rege per Aetium deleta. Chron. 452, a. 436, p. 660. 184 See Chron. 452, a. 451. Cf. Muhlberger (1998), 85–6. 185 See Mar., Chron. a. 547, a. 565, a. 579. The only positive ecclesiastic news refers to Sigismund founding a monastery in Agaune, ibid a. 515. Marius also refers to cosmic signs, ibid. a. 560, a. 566, catastrophes, see ibid. a. 563, a. 566, a. 580, and plague, see ibid. a. 570, a. 571. On his life and work, see his Epytaphium, MGH SS 24 (1879), p. 795; Favrod (1990).

76

chapter three

events, on the other hand, are enumerated in a sober manner, lacking any sort of comment on the enumerated occurrences or the doings of the mentioned individuals.186 The source that deals most purposely with the world of war, and thus provides the largest amount of information on military matters, inclu­ ding explicit appraisements in regard to related achievements and those who fought, are the late-sixth-century Histories composed by Marius’ contemporary Bishop Gregory of Tours.187 His work is arranged in ten books recounting past events in a roughly chronological order, but without the list-structure that characterised the chronicle until then. That warfare was a main theme is shown by several occasions where Gregory explicitly announces, after an excursus, that he wants to go back to his main subject, whereupon he speaks of occurrences that are always related to the military.188 In his account, he skilfully connected secular events to occurrences of spiritual significance, primarily by emphasising supposed interrelations between both.189 The structure of his work suggests that his main aim was to demonstrate that good behaviour was always rewarded, as God intervened in the world.190 This is still in accordance with what Salvian of Marseilles had attempted to demonstrate a century before him. This theological concept had the potential to make every occurrence in life comprehensible, as it implied that nothing just happened randomly. To this aim, and more perspicuously than earlier authors, he willingly drew two opposing stereotypes: the humble, devoted man of the Church, with his mind directed towards spiritual values, ideals, and eternal life, and the overweening, faithless man, who was only interested in material goods and concerned about earthly plea­ sures and gains. The latter was usually represented by a member of the military elite.191 Nevertheless, Gregory did not categorically condemn earthly warfare, at least not as long as the pursued objectives could be 186 Singular near criticism resides in the word iniuste in His consulibus Segericus filius Sigismundi regis iussu patris sui iniuste occisus est. Mar., Chron. a. 522, p. 234. 187 His works have been largely studied, see Mitchell/Wood (2002); De Jong/Rose (2001); Wood (1994); Heinzelmann (1994); Breukelaar (1994); De Nie (1990); Goffart (1988), 112–233. See also Weidemann (1982). Murray (2008) re-dated it to the reign of Childebert II. 188 See Greg., Hist. 2.4, 4.19, 4.28, 4.38, 5.5. 13. See also Meyer (2002), 222; Banniard (1978), 8–9. Cf. the comments in Liebeschuetz (2007, Violence), 42, referring to W. Goffart. 189 See Heinzelmann (1994), 179–85. See also Scripturus bella regum cum gentibus adversis, martyrum cum paganis, eclesiarum cum hereticis. Greg., Hist. 1.praef., p. 3. 190 Similar Fouracre (1998), 62. 191 Heinzelmann (1997), 246. See also Gradowicz-Pancer (2001), 40.



archaeological and written evidence77

classified as just, as when those acting fought against threatening outer enemies.192 Another chronological narration of past events, which is almost as rich as Gregory’s Histories – whose first six books were used as a main source193 – was composed, although apparently never completed, around the year 658 by an anonymous author generally referred to as Fredegar. He was either from Burgundy or the northern parts of Austrasia.194 The anonymous author often provides valuable details on the more current royal campaigns, and this sometimes together with possible reasons why they were initiated,195 and their sequence of events.196 His composition was more concerned with secular issues than Gregory’s Histories, whereas the general evaluation attributed to military achievements remains similar.197 As B.S. Bachrach has shown, the author of this chronicle was interested in military campaigns and those who fought them, as documented, for example, where he offered valuable examples of how to behave in order to prevail and be successful in the art of war.198 The last Merovingian chronicle that is still extant is the Liber Historiae Francorum.199 It was composed, in all likelihood, in Neustria around the year 727 and it contains the only continuous report on the events after 642, when the Chronicle of Fredegar abruptly breaks off. In opposition to the previous compositions, and with the exception of the chronicle composed by Marius of Avenches, it is primarily concerned with secular subjects, lea­ ving the religious world virtually untouched.200 Unlike Gregory, criticising military violence committed against the Church, and, similar to Gregory deploring conflicts fought between kinship groups, it primarily condemns warfare that is not directed against an external enemy,201 and it particularly praises kings for their military skills, most notably the first Frankish King Clovis.202

192 See his lamentations in Greg., Hist. 4.50, 5.praef. Cf. Muhlberger (1998), 90; Banniard (1978), 33–4; Wallace-Hadrill (1968), 34. 193 See Fred. 4.praef. 194 On this chronicle and its composition, see Collins (2007); (1996); Goffart (1963). 195 See, for example Fred. 3.24, 4.37. See also below. 196 See, for example Fred. 4.26, 4.87, 4.90. 197 Cf. the appraisements Fouracre (1998), 62; Goffart (1995), 55; Wehrli (1982), 29–30. 198 Bachrach (2002). 199 On the chronicle, see Gerberding (1987). 200 Gerberding (1987), 31–2 and 159. 201 See most of all LHF 51. Similar Gerberding (1987), 159 and 170. 202 See Clovis being magnus super omnes […] pugnator fortissemus. LHF 7, p. 250.

78

chapter three

2.4. Lives of the Saints Besides these few chronicles, a large number of Passions and Lives, which describe the suffering and experience of holy men, were composed since the late fourth century. Their prime aim was to promote Christian values and ideals, and the cult of local saints, which were considered models for Christian virtues.203 The majority of the texts that are still extant from the seventh century belong to this type of writing,204 which is why the following section will be limited to those most relevant for the subsequent investigation. A significant prototype for these hagiographic writings was the late-fourth-century Life of the soldier and later bishop Martin of Tours, which was composed around 397 by his contemporary and acquaintance Sulpicius Severus. The composition describes the life of a veteran’s son enrolled into the Roman army for twenty years who, with great courage, discharged from his worldly duty to serve his heavenly lord.205 One century later the priest Constantius of Lyons used Sulpicius’ model to compose his Life of the early-fifth-century bishop Germanus of Auxerre.206 In all likelihood, the prelate had been elected to this high ecclesiastical dignity by the people of Auxerre, while he was still in the imperial function of a dux.207 Soon he also distinguished himself as a spiri­tual authority, even though he remained effective as a military leader, as he reportedly managed to drive back inroading Picts and Scots by ordering a British host to use prayer as their sole weapon – a success that was soon known as ‘Alleluja Victory’.208 He was also known for having skilfully dealt with other barbarians.209 All in all, however, the vita does not comprehend a lot of appreciation for the military, which is characterised as less effective than the spiritual power.210 A comparable standpoint is reflected in the anonymous, possibly only slightly younger, vita of Lupus of Troyes.211 This bishop had reportedly accompanied Germanus in 429, 203 Kitchen (1998), 16. Cf. Le Jan (2001), 262; Graus (1965), 302. 204 Prinz (1967), 532. 205 Sulp., Mart. 4. On Sulpicius’ Life, see Stancliffe (1983). See also Barth (2002), 11. On its significance for subsequent hagiographic writings, see Heinzelmann (2004), 337. 206  Cf. Wood (1999), 95. On his life and work, see Borius (1965), 7–106. 207 Germanus’ function as a dux is ambiguous, see Const., Germ. 1. See, however, the mention that he used to cover himself with a military cape after ordination, ibid. 4, 43. 208 Const., Germ. 17–18. See Jone (1986), pleading for the historicity of this victory. 209 Const., Germ. 28.  210 See Muhlberger (1998), 8.  211 Ewig (1978) re-dated the Life to the first half of the sixth century against B. Krusch. On Lupus and his Life, see Heinzelmann (1982), 641; Chadwick (1955), 275–82.



archaeological and written evidence79

on his second voyage to the British Isles, which this time aimed at combatting the Pelagian heresy.212 Just like Germanus, Lupus was known for having fought back, with divine help, all too real enemies, which included the Hun Attila213 and an unnamed king of the Alamans.214 Both had reportedly threatened the bishop’s episcopal see with armed forces,215 and their defeat was thus once more nothing less than a demonstration of the superiority of spiritual powers against the use of force. Giving proof of the benefits of a devoted life and the gains of divine support was also a core aim of Gregory of Tours. In his large corpus of vitae, passiones and miracula, which might have addressed a more contemporary public than his Histories,216 the efficiency of divine powers is emphasised by means of a large number of miracles he affirmed to have observed himself or that he had been told by a reliable witness. Gregory, who occasionally plays on the antithesis between the fighting of God’s soldiers for salvation and the armed combatants of earthly kings, fighting for material goods and power, obviously aimed thereby to prove that God punishes the bad,217 weras He never fails to reward His followers.218 The Lives of his contemporary and friend Venantius Fortunatus, who is the author of the second largest corpus of Merovingian vitae, are less heterogenic in length and style. In opposition to Gregory’s writings, most of his compositions had been set up at the request of a third party.219 Just like the Lives of Germanus of Auxerre and Lupus of Troyes, Fortunatus’s Lives were not limited to the struggle of the saints in the non-material spiritual world.220 Among his protagonists, some had also reportedly beaten hostile armies with heavenly weapons.221 A noteworthy difference to previous compositions, however, is the new taste for the world of war that characterises several Lives.222 Fortunatus particularly accentuates perceptible parallels between the secular and the spiritual soldiery223 and

212 Vit. Lup. 4. 213 Ibid. 5. See also Chadwick (1955), 279. 214 Vit. Lup. 10. See also Chadwick (1955), 281–2. 215 A similar story is contained in a story by Gregory of Tours, see Greg., Patr. 4.2. 216 See nulli latere credo aliquid de hostilitate Theodorici regis, Greg., Jul. 13, p. 569. 217 See for example Greg., Virt. 1.24; Patr. 1.5, 2.2, 4.2, 4.3, 5.2, 18.2; Mart. 60, 65, 71, 77, 78, 88, 104; Conf. 32, 40, 45, 70, 78, 81; Jul. 16. 218 See Greg., Patr. 14.1; Conf. 75. 219 Coates (2000), 1113; Wallace-Hadrill (1983), 85–7. Cf. Kitchen (1998), 63. 220 See i.a. the displacement of a large snake by Marcellus of Paris, Fort., Marc. 10. 221 Fort, Sev. 6. See also Greg., Patr. 5.2. Similar Fort., Alb. 12; Germ. 1. Cf. Jon., Ved. 6. 222 See particularly Fort, Hil. 20–21, Wallace-Hadrill (1983), 87. Cf. Greg., Hist. 2.37. 223 Fort., Hil. 23.

80

chapter three

he willingly underscores his protagonists’ role as God’s warriors.224 A resolute appearance, which had been primarily associated with earthly authorities until then, first appears as a rather popular characteristic of a saint in the Life of Columban the Younger, composed in the middle of the seventh century by the monk Jonas of Bobbio.225 This Life also underpins the extraordinary strength of Christian faith by recounting how it allowed its protagonist to survive even an attack with a lance.226 A certain taste for elements related to the world of war is primarily documented in enhanced parallels drawn between the spiritual struggle and the earthly military, as when monks on a divine mission are compared with soldiers on campaign.227 The same liking is discernible in the Life of Saint Vedast, which was composed by the same author. It includes a lengthy description of Clovis’ campaign against the Alamans, although this account adds nothing to the comprehension of the saint’s virtues.228 In the course of the seventh century, the accentuation of divine powers changed in nature. Although the majority of the Lives’ protagonists were still bishops, the saints gradually ceased to represent the Gallo-Roman senatorial elite, who were now in a slow process of integration into the erstwhile military elite. In the seventh century, many saints had been in the service of a king before their ordination.229 The fact that these dignitaries were recruited from the same elite that set up the representatives of the secular powers entailed their stronger involvement in the contem­ porary struggles for power.230 Many seventh-century Lives target more openly the secular elite as part of their audience, which could explain an intensified interest for worldly and even political issues.231 This includes a more positive depiction of secular values, authority, and procedures.232 The saints to whom these Lives were dedicated now increasingly became ideals for secular men and those who fought, and thus ceased thereby to primarily represent their opposing paradigm.233 An increased interest in the secular world, for example, is attested by the mid-seventh-century Life 224 Fort., Marc. 4; Pat. 5. Cf. Kitchen (1998), 29–30; 44–45. 225 On his character, see his reply to Leuparius, Jon, Col. 2.22, 95. See also ibid. 1.18–19. 226 Ibid. 1.20. 227 See ibid. 1.4. 228 Jon, Ved. 2. 229 See Dado, Elig. 1.14; Act. Aun. 2; Vit. Aud. 2. 230 Prinz (1967), 529–44; Graus (1965), 362–3. 231 See Aun. 15, and its lack of martial aspects. Fouracre/Gerberding (1996), 192, fn. 79. 232 Muhlberger (1998), 83; Heinzelmann (1977), 751; Graus (1961), 86; Bosl (1976), 355. Cf. Prinz (1967), 536; Graus (1965), 380. See also Ruggini (1992), 143. 233 Similar Prinz (1967), 533–4, fn. 19.



archaeological and written evidence81

of Eligius of Noyon,234 which deals in one of two books with the saint’s life before he had become a cleric.235 It also willingly compares his struggles to those of a worldly soldier.236 The same parallel between a saint and a soldier can be found in the one generation younger anonymous Life of Eligius’ contemporary and friend Audoin/Dado of Rouen, who is also openly called a soldier of Christ.237 This Life is most of all interested in the settling of disputes, which is characterised as one of the saint’s prime objectives, whereas armed conflicts fought between the members of the same realm are condemned most severely as having been instigated by the devil.238 A seventh-century hagiographical composition that deals more extensively with the contemporary struggles for power is the Passion of Leudegar of Autun.239 It includes several most heroic depictions of the saint, as when Leudegar, who reportedly opposed the ambitious maior domus Ebroin,240 is said to have offered himself to his enemy, as he hoped to save thereby the lives of his flock.241 The powers of the saints, which were now primarily lauded for their inner strength and assertive­ ness, appear to be based more in this world than in the other,242 as their strength was now thought to emanate from their faith alone, not from the powers granted in return by the one God. Simultaneously, the saint ceased to oppose secular values, which were gradually adapted to develop new ideas of sanctity. 2.5. Summary Sources that explicitly comment on war and the military were rather rare, and those authors who did so mostly did not do this spontaneously, but for a particular objective. The importance of a source’s general style and purpose is underlined by the fact that, in most cases, authors who were responsible for compositions belonging to more than one genre, also advance slightly different views on the same subject. Moreover, as shown by the fact that when an author had been involved in military violence 234 On Eligius and his Life, see McNamara (2001), 137–9. See also Esders (2007), 67. 235 See Dado, Elig. 1.40. 236 Ibid. 1.12. 237 Vit. Aud. 6. On the Life, see Fouracre/Gerberding (1996), 133–53. On its date of composition, see Vit. Aud. 7. 238 Settling of disputes: Vit. Aud. 13–15; cf. ibid. 4; against armed conflicts: ibid. 12. 239 On the Passion, see Fouracre/Gerberding (1996), 254–71. See also Wood (1999), 97. 240 See, in particular Pass. Leud. 18, 29. Cf. Pass. Praei. 26. 241 Pass. Leud. 21, 24; cf. ibid. 35. 242 For a similar conclusion, see Prinz (1967), 533–4, fn. 19.

82

chapter three

himself this was often reflected in what he wrote, these writings were also the product of individuals and thus reflect their own ways of seeing the world and of recording what they had seen in writing. On the other hand, the fact that virtually every author was a member of the clergy – with only very few exceptions, subsequent to the fifth century – entails that direct testimonies by secular men are virtually lacking, which means that a large part of society does not speak for itself. Consequently, contemporary attitudes towards war, and the world of thought of military men, can only be studied by considering the writings of authors who not infrequently stood for a position opposed to what military men stood for. The difficulties that arise from this circumstance are self-evident. The present survey shows on the whole a noticeably positive reevaluation of military men and the waging of war. This is most perceptible in ecclesiastical writings, which document an increased interest in secular issues and a decreasing presence of abstract ideas, which had remained predominant until the earlier fifth century. Nevertheless, the sources fail to provide more elaborate descriptions of military campaigns and narrations, or any detail of the experience and fate of those who participated in these and similar undertakings.243 In most cases, they content themselves with mentioning that a battle had occurred, and sometimes they provide an estimation of the amount of casualties.244 They rarely give more details than the name of the localities where a military host had been or whether an undertaking had been successful. A campaign’s progress and the individual or collective experience of war remain virtually undocumented. It has been argued that, subsequent to the end of the ‘Roman Peace’, warfare had become a significant aspect of contemporaries’ everyday experience. It is hard to tell, however, whether it was the new familiarity of the targeted audience with military undertakings and violence that entailed that a more detailed description or explanation of related events and experiences appeared unnecessary, as historians like G. Scheibelreiter and T. Scharff have argued.245 Does the fact that virtually every author of

243 Banniard (1978), 8; Bodmer (1957), 13. See the discussion in. Halsall (2003, Warfare), 1–6. See also Gregory’s choice of battles narrated more extensively, including almost insignificant campaigns where miracles reportedly occurred, see Greg., Hist. 3.28. Cf. to scarcely mentioned battles as those against the Burgundians and Visigoths, ibid. 3.6, 3.11. 244 See Greg., Hist. 3.7, 5.15; Fred. 4.17, 4.38; LHF 37. 245 See the discussions in Scheibelreiter (1999), 300; Scharff (2009), 461. See also Halsall (2003, Violence), 3–4; Hölscher (2003), 3; Goetz (1998), 175. For a few rare more elaborated descriptions of warfare, see Merob., Paneg. 2, ll. 173–94; Greg., Hist. 4.30, 6.31. Cf., however, to Caes., Bell. V 47.4–52.6; Tac., Hist. 4.54–66; Tac., An. 13.38–40; Liv. XXI 55.3–56.9.



archaeological and written evidence83

still extant written evidence was a member of the Church suffice to explain the diminished interest for what happened in the context of a military campaign?246 More than the accounts of earlier times, postRoman writings most purposely included reports on military events to convey a specific message, which means that reality was subordinated to an author’s primary aim. Comparing accounts of the Roman Principate to the evidence analysed here, it appears that it was not in fact proximity to military violence that instigated more elaborated accounts on this experience, but remoteness from it. According to R. Alston, military language became more popular in Rome in the time of the early Principate, a time when warfare ceased to be fought before a city’s doors.247 This assumption is supported by Roman imperial art, which is well known for its elaborated and realistic depictions of military undertakings.248 It only ceased to include illustrations of warfare after military violence once more had become part of the everyday experience of the targeted public.249 Although this is certainly due to a large part to the late antique decrease in sophistication of art itself, alongside the spread of Christianity, these explanations do not suffice to explain the virtual lack of illustrations referring to this subject after the fifth century. Was it the fact that warfare ceased to be primarily a glorious, that is, above all a successful underta­ king, that warfare ceased to be a popular subject for depiction or description, as no positive connotation or idea could be associated to it? What significance did the fact that, following the fall of Roman rule in the West, the former concept of the barbarian as enemy lost its previous significance have in this regard? Unfortunately, the evidence often does not allow us to give more than a speculative answer to these and related questions. 3. Conclusion A major difficulty that emanates from the survivng written evidence analysed until now is that in every century a few types of sources, with their specific style, content, and public, remained predominant. In the fifth century, poems, letters, and theological works, composed by a large variety of more or less well-known authors, were predominant, whereas the 246 See Halsall (1998, Violence), 5–6), assuming this explanation to be insufficient. 247 Alston (1998), 212. 248 See, for example, the column of Trajan, analysed in Richter (2004, Trajanssäule). 249 See the noteworthy ascertainments referring to antique art in Hölscher (2003), p. 3.

84

chapter three

sixth century sources were characterised by a preponderance of the secular and theological works of only two authors, i.e. Gregory of Tours and Venantius Fortunatus. From the seventh century, on the other hand, a large number of anonymous Lives have been preserved. Every analysis of the changes that occurred in the course of these centuries is complicated by the fact that it is not always clear if the assessed changes reflect reality, or whether they were primarily the result of the different nature of the available sources.250 Beyond this, any comparison of the contents of these sources to the situation in the fourth and previous centuries is impeded by the fact that genuine written evidence from the region of Gaul and its surrounding areas is very rare before the late fourth century. A second difficulty emanates from the unbalanced geographical distribution of these sources, either in terms of where they were composed or where their respective authors came from. The majority of the fifthcentury sources were penned in the Romanised Mediterranean and south Atlantic parts of Gaul, whereas in the sixth century the authors were mainly based in more central parts of Gaul. The majority of the sources still extant from the seventh century, on the other hand, were written in the more barbarised northern parts of the Merovingian realm. Again, this distribution entails that it is difficult to assess how far the detected alter­ ations, including the evolution from Romanisation to barbarisation, relate to an evolution in time, or if they mainly reflect regional differences. A similar problem also characterises the archaeological evidence, and in particular the row-graves. Furnished burials are known mostly from the regions north of the Loire, which means that they should not be considered in regard to the situation in regions south of the same river. All in all, the available evidence is very selective and often only significant for a limited part of the focused territory. Consideration of the difficulties emanating from the available evidence will be born in mind throughout the following discussions. In view of the selective nature and provenence of a majority of the sources, it seems appropriate to focus primarily on the main changes that took place in the time span of a half or even a whole century, and discuss possible difficulties emanating from what has been raised here, where necessary.

250 See also the discussion in Halsall (1998), 6.

CHAPTER FOUR

PERCEIVING THE WORLD OF WAR Although the sources present some noteworthy difficulties for every study aiming at analysing an aspect of human life that is as controversial as the waging of war, they do contain reliable evidence that allows the recon­ struction of constitutive aspects of ancient thinking. The aim of the pre­ sent chapter is to serve as an analysis of late and post-Roman perceptions on the waging of war and those who fought. To this end, the first section deals with the question how the act of waging war was characterised by contemporary writers, and whether an author’s ethnic or religious affiliation affected his ways of valuating it. The subsequent chapter aims at determining how those who fought were represented by those who wrote, and what these depictions tell about the more general contempo­ rary perceptions of the former. To complete the picture of what can be said about how armed violence and those who made use of it were perceived by those who lived in Gaul between the fifth and the seventh centuries, the last section attempts to reconstruct how those who fought and those who did not might have perceived and experienced armed violence, and what significance they attributed to both war and peace. 1. Warfare according to the Written Testimony The previous chapter has shown how the picture provided of war and the world of warriors by contemporary writings is strongly dependent on factors like an author’s biography, the time he lived in, the genre of his writing, his aim in writing, and the public he targeted. It has also been mentioned that a very large majority of the still extant written works have been composed by men of the Church. It would not seem far-fetched to suppose that a man’s religious affiliation was reflected in his writings, meaning that the content, aim, and perspective that characterised the compositions of ecclesiastical authors might have differed from those of the writings of secular men, in particular with regard to the subject of this study. If the general picture provided by the sources on non-Romans could be trusted, it would seem even more evident that barbarians would be more favourably disposed to the use of armed violence. The aim of the

86

chapter four

following section is to survey whether the written evidence confirms these assumptions by examining more closely the positions taken by ecclesiastical, secular, and non-Roman writers. 1.1. Spiritual Attitudes Although the New Testament strongly advocates peace by demanding that people should love their enemies just as their friends,1 the early Church did not have a consistent doctrine regarding war, nor was it strictly paci­ fistic.2 Although the conversion of Constantine and the subsequent introduction of Christianity as the official Roman religion did not entail significant changes in the Church’s position towards the waging of war,3 Christianity thereafter certainly had to deal more intensely with related questions, including its inevitability.4 This is true not least as the period of the empire’s conversion was already characterised by the invasions of external enemies, which would not cease until the empire’s fall. Beginning in the fourth century, the Church fathers were keen to esta­ blish if, and, in the affirmative case, under what circumstances, war could be justified. As seen above, men like Eucherius of Lyon or Salvian of Marseilles suggested that military violence could be understood as a sign given by God to call His flock to live more piously and to penalise those who refused to do so.5 From this perspective, war would have been justi­ fied at least in its function as a divine instrument, which involved the 1 Matt. 5.44; Luke 6.27, 6.35. Cf. Samuel II 19.6. See also Matt. 5.39. 2 A large number of studies have dealt with Christian ideas on war: see most recently Swift (2007), with further references. See, on the other hand, the opposition made by Martin of Tours against the use of violence, that “[t]hough the historicity of this action has been challenged, what is significant is that Martin’s biographer […] did not hesitate to present Martin’s anti-militarist stance as a commendable example for Christians to follow.” (p. 292). 3 Occasionally, under certain circumstances, the Old Testament also advocates the waging of war. See Barth (2002); Ruether (1988), 17. Cf. also Matt. 22.21; John 19.11; Luke 3.14. Cf. R.H. Bainton (1961), in contrast, suggests that “[t]he accession of Constantine termi­ nated the pacifist period in church history” (p. 85). On the contradiction between the New and the Old Testament, see Dawson (1996), 169–70. See also the short survey given by Demandt (1998), 411–12. 4 D.S. Bachrach (2003) assumes that the subsequent promotion of Christianity as state cult “created formidable challenges for Christian leaders. They were now forced to reconcile Christianity’s pacifist inheritance with the responsibilities of administering an empire founded and sustained in war” (p. 3). See also Graus (1965), 343. Cf. Bainton (1961) 16; Brennecke (1997), 82–3; Kötting (1988), 245–249; Ruether (1988), 20. See also the Theodosian Code stipulating in 416 that only Christians should serve in the army. CTh. XVI 10.21. 5 See the section on the early poets and ecclesiastical works above in chapter three. See also, for example, Greg., Hist. 2.5.



perceiving the world of war87

engagement of military men as agents.6 The pious life the Church required its flock to aspire to was primarily directed towards eternal life and char­ acterised by abstinence and devotion. This implied that earthly life was only a transitory moment, whereas worldly pleasures and riches were, at the most, an obstruction on a man’s path towards the life to come. Earthly successes like military victories therefore were of no relevance. Seen from this perspective, a devout man would have no reason to participate in warfare, since worldly powers or riches were void of lasting value.7 In the early fifth century, it must have been difficult for those convinced that God was desperately appealing to his believers to change their ways of life to realise that probably a large majority of their contemporaries was not so much impressed by what had happened as they had been themselves, and thus did not draw the same conclusions from it.8 This is, at least, the impression left by several early fifth-century writings. Those who did live strictly as advocated by the Church were probably only a minority. The Christian community thus required new ways to assess what seemed unavoidable. The most famous author making remar­ kable efforts to reconcile the inevitable to Christian ideals9 was Augustine of Hippo. A specialist in the holy scriptures, he assessed that warfare in fact could be justified, as long as it was directed against the wicked and its ultimate aim remained peace – not love of violence or the lust of power. To this end, the waging of war could be justified for those who wanted to act justly. From Augustine’s perspective, it was thus the aim, not the act itself, that defined whether a war was to be considered just or unjust.10 The stance towards war recorded by members of the clergy in Gaul was less elaborate but not incompatible with that of Augustine. The best known example is Gregory of Tours. Admitting the inevitability of armed conflicts and violence, he particularly argued against armed conflicts between the members of one people, and suggested that only peace could legitimate the waging of war. In his preface to his fifth book, he deplored that:  6 See, for example Salv., Gub. VI 12.71, VI 17.93–4. Cf. Dum enim semper gubernat deus, semper et iudicat, quia gubernatio ipsa iudicium est. Ibid. I 4.18, p. 6; nihil penitus sine ratione consistat. Ibid. I 4.19, p. 7.  7 See quo peccet qui nil cupiat? Paul, Carm. 6, l. 238, p. 15.  8 See, for example Paul., Epigr. ll. 30–31; Prosp., Carm. ll. 913–18; Paul, Carm. 6, ll. 236–46; Salv., Gub. IV 12.54, IV 16.80, VI 9.46–52, VI 13.72–9, VI 15.82–9. Cf. Courcelle (1964), 87–8; Favez (1957), 79–80.  9 Cf. Dyson (2006), 116–17. 10 Aug., Civ. 4.15, 19.12; Aug., Faust. 22.74. Cf. Dyson (2006), 127–34; Scharff (2004), 477; Dawson (1996), 172–3; (1995), 248–56; Ruether (1988), 20; Wallace-Hadrill (1975), 161;

88

chapter four It gives me no pleasure to write of all the different civil wars which afflicted the Frankish people and their rulers; […]. ‘The father shall risk up against the son, and the son against the father; brother shalt risk up against brother and kinsman against kinsman.’ […] If only you kings had occupied your­ selves with wars like those in which your ancestors larded the ground with their sweat, then the other races of the earth, filled with awe at the peace which you imposed, might have been subjected to your power! Just think of all that Clovis achieved, Clovis, the founder of your victorious country, who slaughtered those rulers who opposed him, conquered hostile peoples and captured their territories, thus bequeathing to you absolute and unques­ tioned dominion over them! But you, what are you doing? […] you cannot keep peace, and therefore you do not know the grace of God.11

More than Augustine, Gregory characterised wars successfully fought for peace against either aggressors or external enemies as exemplary and opposed them to the civil wars of his own time. Military campaigns against heretics were not explicitly condemned.12 Only these types of war implicitly deemed to be just could be fought with the support of God13 and be adorned with victoria. This word carried such positive connotations Russell (1975), 16–26; Bainton (1961), 92–9; Regout (1934), 40–4. Two centuries later, although in a much more basic manner, Isidore of Seville likewise defined every war as justified as long as it aimed at acting against aggression and was not motivated by anger. Isid., Ety. XVIII 1.2. See J.M. Wallace-Hadrill (1975) underlining that “Isidore is less certain that warfare is regrettable” (p. 161). Cf. Russell (1975), 27; Regout (1934), 45–6. On the spread of the Augustinian idea of a just war, see also the summary given by Nitschke (1995), 242. 11 Taedit me bellorum civilium diversitatis, que Francorum gentem et regnum valde proterunt, memorare […]. Consurgit pater in filium, filius in patrem, frater in fratrem, proximus in propinquum. […] Utinam et vos, o regis, in his proelia, in quibus parentes vestri desudaverunt, exercimini, ut gentes, vestra pace conterritae, vestris viribus praemirentur! Recordamini, quid capud victuriarum Chlodovechus fecerit, qui adversos reges interfecit, noxias gentes elisit, patrias subiugavit, quarum regnum vobis integrum inlesumque reliquit! […] Quid quaeritis? […] quod, pacem non habentes, Dei gratiam indegetis. Greg., Hist. 5.praef., p. 193. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 253. Cf. Greg., Hist. 4.23, 4.50. 12 See, for example Hist. 2.37, 3.praef. J.M. Wallace-Hadrill (1968) assumes that “the bella civilia of his own day shocked Gregory so much: [because] they diverted strenuitas, energy, into fruitless channels” (p. 34). See also the section on chronicles and histories above in chapter three. A similar attitude is still advocated in the Carolingian area, see Scharff (2004), 475. For other armed conflicts against outer people and aggressors, see, for example Greg., Hist. 2.7, 3.21, 4.10, 4.16. 4.23, 4.29, 4.42, 8.28, 10.9. Cf. Halsall (2003, Warfare), 17; Wynn (2001), 2–8; Wallace-Hadrill (1975), 163. 13 See especially Gregory’s comment on the campaigns of Clovis Prosternebat enim cotidiae Deus hostes eius sub manu ipsius et augebat regnum eius, eo quod ambularet recto corde coram eo et facerit quae placita erant in oculis eius. Greg., Hist. 2.40, p. 91. Cf. also the words attributed to the king Guntramn in regards to his antecessors’ successes victurias obtinuerunt gentesque adversas, divino opitulante adiutorio, in ense et parma saepius subdiderunt, ibid. 8.30, p. 395. See also See H.-W. Goetz (2011, 149–51), underlining that God was only expected to assist in those battles he supported. See also Czock (2004), 13–23. See also Conc., Tur. 25[24].



perceiving the world of war89

that, according to a study by P. Wynn, it can only be found in connec­ tion  to these irreproachable victories.14 On the other hand, as will be exposed in further detail in a subsequent chapter, this implied that victory alone legitimated a battle and the prevailing party.15 Gregory thus did not draw a categorically negative picture of war.16 The idea that God supports battles fought for the right causes is also contained in the letters of Avitus of Vienne, as when he addressed the following words to the Burgundian prince Sigismund, who was leaving for a military campaign: For all who honestly take upon themselves the name of ‘Catholic’ ought now to entreat God with nightlong prayers, that he faithfully join what is near and with a happy outcome overthrow what is hostile on your behalf, when you convey our prayers to him, untouched and whole, and that thus, in a complicated and difficult situation, with Christ to fight before you, you may gain both the peace you desire and the victory you are owed.17

An antithetic position in regard to what Gregory called civil war can only be found once. The so-called Chronicle of Fredegar reports that when Theudebert II chased his brother Theuderic II until they reached Cologne, Bishop Leudegasius of Mainz beseeched the persecutor to bring to an end with all his might what he had begun.18 Apart from this and although the seventh-century testimony does shed a more positive view on the military,19 a stronger objection against domestic conflicts can still be found until the early eighth century, as when the Liber Historiae 14 See Wynn (2002), 10–11. 15 See Scharff (2009), 469. 16 Cf. W.A. Goffart (1995) assuming that “Gregory’s Histories are full of military incompetence and debacles. He gives a negative impression of war, as an activity in which no one is heroic” (pp. 45–6). On the other hand, S. Muhlberger (1998) is certainly right to say that “his detailed account of his own times reveals Gregory as a man deeply unen­ thusiastic about military adventures, even against dangerous enemies like the Bretons or the Goths.” (p. 90). 17 Quippe cum, quicumque veraciter catholocorum nomen usurpant, pervigili prece deo supplicare nunc debeant, ut vobis vota nostra illibata atque integra relaturis et fideliter vicina coniungat et feliciter adversa subiciat sicque in rerum necessitate multiplici ambifariam vobis Christo propugnante contingat et pax, quae cupitur et victoria, quae debetur. Avit., Epist. 92, p. 99. Transl. D. Shanzer and I.N. Wood (2002), 240. See also Avit., Epist. 51. 18 ‚Quod coepisti perfice; satis te uteliter oportet huius rei causam expetire. Rustica fabula dicetur, lopus ascendissent in montem, et cum filiae suae iam venare coepissent, eos ad se in monte vacat, dicens. ‘Quam longe oculus vester in unamquemque parte videre prevalet, non habetis amicus, nisi paucus qui vestro genere sunt. Perfecite quod coepistis’. Fred. 4.38, p. 139. It is possible that for Fredegar this conflict was not civil war, as there were rumours that Theuderic II was not Theudebert II’s brother, a fact to which the bishop is reported to have referred to by using a fable on a wolf beseeching his children not to spare anyone who was not of their own kin. 19 See Muhlberger (1998), 83; Heinzelmann (1977), 751.

90

chapter four

Francorum explained that a battle between two opposing factions of Franks had been instigated by the devil.20 Nevertheless, the clergy demonstrated an impressive commitment to preventing or reducing afflictions caused by warfare and other acts of violence, following thereby the call of the Bible for peace and nonviolence.21 This was accomplished by using verbal persuasion,22 personal interventions,23 and offering sanctuary to everyone in need.24 It seems noteworthy that, according to the sources, this help was granted regard­ less of whether a person was guilty or not,25 or whether a member of the clergy had been the victim of the inculpated crime.26 As homicide was considered a capital sin,27 interventions against capital punishment were of primary concern.28 Interventions regarding other acts of violence, including torture or imprisonment, however, are also reported.29 Beyond this, the works of several ecclesiastical authors documenting violent acts likewise contain significant criticism on related approaches and the will to amend comparable behaviour by means of education.30 1.2. Secular Perceptions Getting hold of a contemporary perception of warfare belonging to the secular population is more difficult. Non-clerical understanding was much 20 In illis diebus, instigante diabulo, Franci denuo Cocia silva in Francos invicem inruunt ac sese mutuo dirissima cede prosternunt. LHF 51, p. 325. On the further development of the idea of a bellum iustum in later centuries, see Leyser (1994), 193. 21 See Prov. 10.6, 10.11, 28.17; Psal. 11.5, 29.11; Isai. 60.18; Jerem.22.3; Matt. 5.9; Luke 3.14. 22 See especially Greg., Hist. 8.40. 23 See for example Cypr., Caes. 1.24; Greg., Hist. 8.27; Greg., Patr. 8.7. Accordingly, a pauper who had been assailed by a Burgundian first seeked help from the local bishop who then forwarded the matter to the local judge, Greg., Patr. 8.9. According to the statistics set up by R.F. Newbold (1994, 15–16), Gregory’s Histories alone record 29 instances where God, a saint, or members of the clergy tried to prevent or stopped acts of violence, among them 13 bishops. 24 See Greg., Hist. 4.13, 4.18, 4.20, 4.46, 5.2, 5.14, 5.38, 5.49, 6.12, 6.16, 6.17, 7.4, 7.10, 7.15, 7.21, 7.38, 7.43, 8.6, 8.18, 8.30, 9.9, 9.12, 9.33, 9.38, 10.6; Greg., Virt. 1.23, 2.27; Greg., Jul. 5, 10; Fred. 4.54, 4.78, 4.83. See also Conc. Aur. (511) 1; Capit. 3. 25 See for example Greg., Hist. 6.8; Greg., Patr. 8.7. Cf. Peters (1995), 25. 26 Greg., Hist. 5.49; Greg., Mart. 72. 27 See Prov. 6.16–17; Gal. 6.21; Conc. Ven. 1; Salv., Gub. III 10.55. 28 See, for example Greg., Hist. 6.8, 6.36; Greg., Patr. 8.7; Greg., Virt. 1.21, 3.53; Greg., Conf. 99; Dado, Elig. 1.31. 29 On torture, see for example Greg., Hist. 5.39, 5.49. On imprisonment, see for example ibid. 5.49, 7.1, 10.6; Greg., Patr. 4.3, 5.2; Greg., Virt. 1.23, 2.35, 4.6, 4.35, 4.41; Greg., Mart. 72; Greg., Conf. 86; Dado, Elig. 2.15; Jon., Col. 1.34. Miraculous liberations of prisoners are already mentioned in the Bible, see Acts 12.7, 12.16, 12.26. On possible motives leading to the freeing of prisoners, see Graus (1961). 30 Halsall (1998), 6.



perceiving the world of war91

more heterogenic, being less pre-defined by a specific set of ideas or doctrines that characterised the writings of the upper clergy, to which the majority of the known authors belonged. It thus does not seem advisable to attempt generalising in order to establish how a majority of secular people saw and assessed the world, even less so when considering the fact that there is almost no direct testimony. Additionally, it is most unlikely that the meagre testimony still available from secular authors reflects the world of thought of the mass of the contemporary population, as their compositions also appear to have been strongly influenced by the clerical writing tradition. As they often wrote by order of a powerful figure, furthermore, their works did not tend to contain their own ideas, as the primary aim of these texts was generally to please an authority or meet its requirements. They thus first of all reflect ideas that met with the respec­ tive recipient’s expectations. The testimony of Sidonius Apollinaris and Venantius Fortunatus, moreover, must be used with care as a source for secular thinking. Both became clerics in their later years by taking over the episcopal sees of Clermont and Poitiers, respectively.31 The address­ ees of Fortunatus’ works as a bishop were primarily men of the Church, and he himself became increasingly concerned with questions related to religious issues.32 Sidonius, on the other hand, could never completely abandon the politician and poet he had been before his ordination.33 In both cases, it is not easy to draw a straight line between their testimony as a secular man and the evidence given as members of the Church. The following analysis is therefore limited to assessing the respective percep­ tion contained in the writings of the few known authors. It should only subsequently be estimated what the results tell more in general about contemporary secular ways to perceive the world. Sidonius, who had assumed a military command himself, at least when he was elderly, in his position as bishop of Clermont,34 understood very 31 Sidonius was ordained around 469/70 as bishop of Clermont. Anderson (1963), xlii. According to M. Reydellet (1994, xx), Fortunatus was ordained priest around 574/6. 32 Cf. J. George (1992), assuming that “[i]t is significant that it was the ecclesiastics, rather than the laymen, who took up the role of literary patrons to Fortunatus in the most thoroughgoing fashion. […] Fortunatus’ work had certainly focused on the Church and its concerns from his earliest days, an orientation which would lead him to become more closely involved with the ecclesiastical than with the secular world” (p. 151). Cf. Reydellet (1994), xxiv-v. 33 See the excellent survey by Stevens (1933), 131–8. On Sidonius’ position in regards to the aristocratic and episcopal world, see also Rousseau (1976), 356–377. 34 Sid., Epist. III 7.4. See also gladius inpolitus de curae raritate robiginem, ibid. VI 6.1, p. 98, suggesting familiarity with warfare and weapons. The same is true for his vividly depictions of battles in Carm. 5. See also Kaiser (2003), 82; Whittaker (1993), 291.

92

chapter four

well the importance of fighting external enemies in order to make life inside the empire more secure.35 He stressed the necessity for rulers to participate in these undertakings as leaders when he stated in his panegy­ ric on Anthemius that “we need now an armed prince who in the manner of our sires shall not order wars but wage them”.36 In accordance with the general tone expected of a panegyric, he did not condemn warfare as a whole: for example, he called Anthemius’ military successes against the Alan war-leader Hormidac belli magis acta.37 The author upvalued the same encounter by refraining from characterising it as a fight against an internal rebel and calling it instead a combat against a strong and frightful enemy.38 Praise for military successes, however, is not unre­ stricted. Consistently with both Roman and Christian ideals,39 Sidonius agreed that even emperors should only wage war in order to establish peace, as suggested when he praised Anthemius in the same panegyric by stressing that the need for peace had led to the rise of a man able to actu­ ally control war.40 The idea that peace should be the supreme objective of every military undertaking is also included in the near-contemporary panegyric of Merobaudes, which emphasises that peace followed the call 35 See, for example, his statements on Majorian exsultans Europa sophos, quod rector haberis,/victor qui fueras (ll. 8–9), connected to his depiction of the bellatrix [..] Roma (ll. 13–41, here l. 13), Sid., Carm. 5, 188. See also Sid., Epist. III 8.2. Cf. the connotation given with the word memorabile in Bellum contra Burgundionum memorabile exarsit, quo universa paene gens cum rege per Aetium deleta. Chron. 452. a. 436, p. 660. 36 […] modo principe nobis/ est opus armato, veterum qui more parentum/ non mandet sed bella great. Sid., Carm. 2, ll. 382–4, 183. Transl. W.B. Anderson (1963) 41. The gain deriving from a soldier-emperor is likewise underlined in an earlier panegyric on Majorian stating Concipe praeteritos, res publica, mente triumphos:/ imperium iam consul habet, quem purpura non plus/ quam lorica operit. Sid., Carm. 5, ll. 1–3, p. 188. Cf. quotiens tibi bella geruntur,/ discipulus, non miles adest? Ibid. ll. 198–9, p. 192. Similar Sid., Epist. 8.6.1. 37 Sid., Carm. 2, l. 236. Cf. Altheim (1969), 81. 38 […] belli magis acta revolvo/ quod bellum non parva manus nec carcere fracto /ad gladiaturam tu Spartace vincte parasti/ sed Scythicae vaga turba plagae, feritatis abundans,/ dira, rapax, vehemens, ipsis quoque gentibus illic/ barbara barbaricis, cuius dux Hormidac atque/ civis erat. Sid., Carm. 2, ll. 236–42, p. 179. The idea is here that Sidonius intended to emphasise this military success as particularly praiseworthy. Cf. the more free translation provided by W.B. Anderson (1963): “rather do I now relate the exploits of a real war” (p. 29). Cf. the earlier panegyric by Mamertinus on Julian stating Romanis oppodos bonas spes, libertatem, diuitas diuidentem, tum ex parte altera in barbaricum solum terrorem bellicum tripidationes, fugas, formidines obserentem? Mam., Paneg. 8, p. 23. 39 See J.M. Wallace-Hadrill (1975) underlining that Romans too believed “that warfare ought not to be waged for offensive purposes; and among these they counted the pursuit of glory unaccompanied by further justification. […] Peace, then, was not merely absence of war; it was a condition that in practice resulted from war” (p. 158). 40 […] pax rerum misit, qui bella gubernet. Sid., Carm. 2, l. 316, p. 181.



perceiving the world of war93

to arms,41 accompanied by the idea that a war waged against external enemies was legitimate.42 According to the panegyric evidence, this laud­ able aim thus allowed the waging of war and legitimised military success, allowing both to be characterised in a comparatively positive manner.43 Nevertheless, having been a victim of a military attack himself after some Goths had besieged the city of Clermont in the early 470s, Sidonius gave a significantly altered picture of warfare. In a rather personal letter to his son-in-law Ecdicius, he characterised it as the most hideous thing of all, only called bella by his ancestors in antithesis to its real character.44 The view given here by Sidonius thus varied according to the genre of his text, and possibly his own momentary situation facing violence. One century later, the poet Fortunatus stated in a poem dedicated to the dux Lupus and composed shortly after the latter’s victory over a host of Saxons and Danes,45 that this success had only been possible due to the duke’s merits.46 What Fortunatus certainly had in mind is, again, that Lupus fought for a just cause by facing an external enemy. The poet’s conception of a justified war, however, is less dependent on peace as supreme objective than Sidonius’. The link he drew between the waging of war and the establishment of peace is less clear, as when he stated that in times of military action ‘new pleasures of peace’ come up.47 His exposi­ tion of the relation between war and peace was limited to his reference to the different function of the elite in times of war, as opposed to the times when military activities ceased to prevail. This opposition is expressed most clearly when Fortunatus pointed out that Lupus’ position was based on two qualities: the art of war and the (just) use of law. 41 Pax armis accita venit. Merob., Paneg. 2, l. 43, p. 65. Cf. also Iustis bellorum causis nec pace superba. Rut. 1, l. 89, p. 6. 42 See ferri laudandus amor Latiique cruoris/ indocilis iugulisque madens hostilibus ensis/ indomitum mitemque probet. Merob., Paneg. 2, ll. 102–4, p. 66. 43 Consequently, military successes that did not aim at re-establishing peace were not depicted in this positive way. See, for example, the case of pirates devastating parts of Gaul qui pacem pugnamque negat and avoid open fight, although they triumph over Ricimer quem publica fata respiciunt. Sid., Carm. 2, ll. 352–60, p. 182. 44 […] ex adverso maiores nostri proelia, quibus nihil est foedius, bella dixerunt. Sid., Epist. II 2.1, p. 21. Cf. Alii per antiphrasin putant dictum (eo quod sit horridum; unde illud: Bella, horrida bella), cum bellum contra sit pessimum. Isid., Ety. XVIII 1.9, p. 78. 45 Fort., Carm. 7.7, l. 50. 46 […] quam merito vincit qui tua iussa facit! Fort., Carm. 7.7, l. 54, p. 160. Cf. quam bene fit primus cui favet omne decus! Ibid. l. 48. 47 […] post Italas terras mittis mihi, Rhene, parentes ;/adventu fratrum non peregrinus ero./ tempore belligero pacis nova gaudia surgunt,/ hi quia venerunt quos meus optat amor. Fort., Carm. 7.21, ll. 9–12, p. 174. The context of these encounters remains uncertain. Possibly these events were the reason why Fortunatus initially left Italy.

94

chapter four

According to Fortunatus, Lupus hurled his weapons in times of war and watched over justice in times of quietude.48 From his point-of-view, peace was not the ardently desired state of normality that warfare should have directed towards, as suggested by earlier authors like Rutilius Namatianus,49 but both circumstances stood at the same level and appeared alternately to each other.50 However, although Fortunatus never explicitly condemned war, he did express a clear preference for peace. This was particularly obvious when he emphasised that king Charibert had best protected his flock by his love of peace, as he did not expose them to the perils of a military conflict in the way his predecessor Clovis had done.51 Due to the fact that most extant secular writings dealing with the subjects of war and peace are of a panegyric nature and therefore almost necessarily contain praises of the military functions and achievements of contemporary authorities, it is difficult objectively to compare the signifi­ cance attributed here to the use of force to the assessment of the same contained in the writings of ecclesiastic authors. The majority of the few pieces of written evidence composed by a secular author that belong to other source genres often do not deal with this subject at all, as is the case with a majority of contemporary letters. An analysis of secular testimony of the seventh century is almost impossible, as virtually no text was preserved that had been composed to a satisfactory degree of certitude by a non-clerical writer. The only body of evidence from the Merovingian period that meets this criterion are the invaluable writings 48 […] bella moves armis, iura quiete regis./ fultus utrisque bonis, hinc armis legibus illinc. Fort., Carm. 7.7, ll. 46–7, p. 160. Cf. ibid. 7.24, ll. 21–4. Cf. Roberts (2009), 59. Comparable associations between military activities and rather civil functions, which were more important in peaceful periods, can also be found in the fourth-century panegyric of Mamertinus, see Aetatis omnes in castris, hiemes in tribunalibus degit. Mam., Paneg. 4, p. 18. Similar ibid. 1, frg. I B, ll. 2–9. 49 See Cuius Aremoricas pater Exuperantius oras/ Nunc postliminium pacis amare docet. Rut. 1, ll. 213–14, p. 12. Cf. Illa quidem longis nimium deformia bellis. Ibid. l. 21, p. 3. Nevertheless, Rutilius Namatianus did not substantially question the necessity to wage war, see, for example, Hermanis manibus non sufficit usus inermis,/ Si non sint aliae ferrea tela manus. Ibid. ll. 367–8, p. 20. 50 This idea is not new, see Mamertinus on Julian: Ita illi anni spatial diuisa suntut aut barbarous domitet aut ciuitibus iura restituat, explaining that perpetuum professus aut contra hostem aut contra uita certamen. Mam., Paneg. 4, pp. 19–20. 51 […] cur tamen hic repetam praeconia celsa priorum,/ cum potius tua laus ornet honore genus?/ illi auxere armis patriam, sed sanguine fuso;/ tu plus adquiris qui sine clade regis./ quos prius infestis lassarunt bella periclis./ hos modo securos pacis amore foves. Fort., Carm. 6.2, ll. 35–40, p. 132. Cf. the attitude taken by Gregory of Tours towards Clovis’ campaigns, Greg., Hist. 2.27–43.



perceiving the world of war95

of the patrician Dynamius of Provence.52 His duties as patrician undoubt­ edly included military leadership,53 which implies that Dynamius must have been a military man himself. Beyond this, he was accompanied, at least under certain circumstances, by armed followers.54 Aside from his correspondent Fortunatus, he is the author of the largest corpus of extant secular testimony from Gaul.55 Overall, two letters and two Lives remain. From his poetic compositions, however, only a single verse has been pre­ served.56 In opposition to what one could expect, his letters do not express a particular interest in military issues. His first composition, addressed to an unknown friend, is primarily concerned with the friendship between the author and the recipient, the latter’s eloquence and the former’s desire to receive a reply.57 The main concern of the second text is the generosity and council of the recipient, the bishop Vilicius of Metz.58 His Lives, nev­ ertheless, do contain more tangible hints of Dynamius’ world of thought. Although not explicitly concerned with issues related to the world of war, his Life of Bishop Maximus of Riez contains several stories that prove an elevated interest for struggles against a potentially dangerous enemy. For example, he described how the saint, addressed with the term miles Christi,59 managed to hold out against the terrible devil by means of his spiritual weapons.60 In another chapter he reported how the saint caused 52 On Dynamius of Provence and his writings, see Greg., Hist. 6.7, 6.11, 9.11; Fort., Carm. 6.9, 6.10. See also PLRE 3, 429–30; Norberg (1991), 46–51; Selle-Hosbach (1974), 80–2, nr. 74; Riché (1962), 229–30. 53 The title patricius is conveyed by his epitaph, written by his grandson of the same name, see his Epitaphium Dinamii Patricii et Eucheriae conjugis edited in R. Peiper (1883), 194. See also the title Ad Iovinum inlustrem ac patricium et rectorem provinciae given by Fortunatus in his poem on Iovinus. Fort., Carm. 7.11, p. 165. Gregory only accounts for the title rector (Greg., Hist. 6.7, 6.11), apparently used more or less as a synonym to patricius. See also the military engagements reported of Amatus and Mummolus in their function as a patricius, Greg., Hist.4.42. 54 Gregory of Tours speaks of armatorum turbae. Greg., Hist. 6.11, p. 281. 55 Apart from the barbarian laws. See also B. Dumézil (2007), underlining that “il s’agit d’un cas exceptionnel pour le très haut Moyen Âge, d’œuvre hagiographique rédigée par un auteur qui est resté un pur laïc” (p. 572). 56 The verse is Laeta sendes filomella fronde. It survived thanks to a grammarian and is cited here after Dumézil (2007), 572, n. 116. According to B. Dumézil (ibid. 571–2), Dynamius had also composed a treaty on grammar himself. 57 Ep. Aus. 12. 58 Ibid. 17. Fortunatus addressed a poem to Vulicius, see Fort., Carm. 3.13. 59 Dyn., Max. 5, 8. 60 Tunc beatissimi viri conspectibus forma ingenti atque terribili diabolus insidiator apparuit. Sed sicut Christi athletam spiritalibus armis indutum terrere non valuit, ita inopinantem monachum ictu formidinis sauciavit. Dyn., Max. 5, ll. 105–9, p. 77; cf. Migne (1863), col. 34. A little later, he described how the saint detected a daemon keeping some oxen from moving. After he brought some pillars up on a hill where a church for saint Albinus

96

chapter four

the sudden death of a dog that had almost killed an adolescent on the road. This was not achieved by means of arms but simply by breathing on the offending animal.61 An interest for issues related to the world of war­ riors may be deduced from his Life of Marius,62 in which he reported how two wolves took revenge on a dog that killed its own whelps by abducting it to the forest.63 A comparable taste for spiritual struggles against nonhuman enemies – among them the devil and various demons – only came up in Gaul at the time of Dynamius himself.64 It appears that comparable stories and motives might have especially met the taste of a secular public that, having been less well instructed in religious conceptions than eccle­ siastics,65 must have been more interested in less abstract face-to-face struggles than in purely spiritual demonstrations of divine powers. Taking Dynamius’ compositions as a testimony of this secular taste, this would have been charaterised by a preference for stories putting more weight on the outer world and including animals, in particular animals like dogs or horses well-known by the secular elite.66 This allowed the drawing of sce­ narios that were almost certainly more to the liking of this upper stratum. should be constructed, he was able to banish the daemon through prayer, ibid. 7–8. Cf. also ibid. 6. 61 After the dog injured the child: Sed ita eum parentes proprii pugnis pectora concisa tundentes ululatibus et fletibus obruebant, ut consurgere non valeret, quamlibet salutem pristinam recepisset. […] ad hospitium revertitur proprium, cui iam coeperat parari sepulcrum. Unde piissimi genitores arbitrandum est quale gaudium potuerint habere post luctum, dum hinc exsultabant de praesentia redivivi subolis, inde quod ad integrum viveret vix credebant. […]. Nec mirum est qualiter spieitalis athleta, dum gregem humani generis defenderet, hostem eius ictu letifero perculisset; qui, quod expedire gladio manus armata consueverat, flatu operante supplebat, et forsitan ferientis ictum fallere potuit, quod obtutum pontificis non fefellit. Inflicta vero vulnera ita orationis medicamento et crucis sanavit auxilio, ut subito pariter et livorcm abstergeret et dolorem; nec quod rapidis dentibus aviditas insana corruperat, apparebat. Dyn., Max. 13, ll. 312–35, pp. 100–2. Cf. Migne (1863), cols. 37–8. 62 The version that has come to us is apparently a later reworking of the original, see PLRE 3, 430. However, it can be assumed that the main events described here go back to Dynamius’ pen. 63 Alio quoque tempore dum ad quosdam ecclesiae filios visitandos accederet, canis, quae catulos habebat, subito exiliens, capsellam eius scidit. Dum vero Dei famulus pro hac re vultum parumper inclinasset, duo lupi eius iniuriae ultores canem ipsam rapuerunt, et raptam suis pastibus destinantes ad silvam teste populo perduxerant. Dyn., Mar. 9, col. 29. 64 As we have seen above, similar motives likewise appear in some Lives by Venantius Fortunatus. Physical human enemies were already faced in the fifth century Lives of Germanus of Auxerre and Lupus of Troyes. 65 Cf. Riché (1962), 233–6. 66 Alongside Dyn., Mar. 9 and Max. 13, a special interest for stories involving animals is also attested where Dynamius recounted how a dog died after eating a piece of bread blessed by the saint (Dyn., Mar. 8) or how he recovered a stolen horse (ibid. 5). This inter­ est, however, was not exclusively restricted to secular compositions, see Scheibelreiter (1999), 82–83.



perceiving the world of war97

Beyond this, a particular interest in the male body can be determined.67 Although there is no testimony for the subsequent century, it seems possible that at a time when the (barbarian) warrior and the (Roman) senatorial elite finally acculturated to form one single group that soon set up both spiritual and military leaders, this secular taste significantly influ­ enced contemporary scriptures, especially hagiography, in such a way as to create the taste for physical and warlike elements that subsequently characterised seventh-century writings.68 To summarise, it is not possible to define a specifically ‘secular perspec­ tive’, nor to draw a straight line between secular and spiritual authorship, as constitutional elements of secular writing were not alien to ecclesiasti­ cal thinking. Both primarly differed by their degree of emphasisis on the male body and face-to-face encounters. Beyond this, it appears that the specific valuation contained in secular compositions was more depen­ dent on the author’s situation or his audience’s taste and expectation than on moral concerns. 1.3. The non-Roman Testimony At first glance, it does not seem far-fetched to act on the assumption that works penned by north-western European barbarians were characterised by a comparably strong interest in elements related to the world of war. The Roman sources leave the impression that barbarian society was fairly militarised.69 This image of the warlike barbarian goes back to earlier Roman testimony. C. Julius Caesar, for example, reported that the barba­ rians he had met were ‘fierce’ and ‘barbarous’ people with ‘enormous bod­ ies’ and that they were foremost trained in the arts of war.70 Barbarian ferocity is a topos that remained prevalent during the entire imperial 67 See, for example the story in the Vita sancti Maximi (c. 7–8) mentioning heavy pillars being brought up a hill to build a church, or the healing recounted in Vita sancti Marii (c. 7). B. Dumézil (2007) likewise notifies in regards to the group around Gogo and by referring to the second letter of Dynamius to Vilicius (Epist. Aus. 17), that “[i]l y a chez ces hommes une étonnante fascination pour la beauté du corps. On pense au visage de l’autre, on loue sa beauté” (p. 571 and n. 114). 68 Cf. Hen (2007, 106). 69 See for example Sid., Carm. 5, ll. 237–54. See also Von Carnap-Bornheim (2008), 77; Derks/Jefferis (1998), 45. 70 Caesar describes them as homines feros ac barbaros (Caes., Bell. I 33.4), qui ingenti magnitudine corporum Germanos, incredibili virtute atque exercitatione armis esse (ibid. I 39.1, p. 60), vita omnis in venationibus atque in studiis rei militaris consistit (ibid. VI 21.3, p. 334). See also the description given of the Suebi, ibid. IV 1.3. Cf. ut iussi conveniunt […]. Ut turbae placuit, considunt armati. […] honoratissimum assensus genus est armis laudare. Tac, Germ. 11. See also ibid. 6, 13, 14.

98

chapter four

period and it still appears in the writings of authors like Ammianus Marcellinus71 or Sidonius Apollinaris.72 It only became less common in Merovingian times.73 The impression that these barbarians were particu­ larly warlike is also supported by the many accounts of barbarians operat­ ing as a military host,74 as well as by the large number of soldiers recruited for the Roman army from regions east of the Rhine.75 The majority of the few testimonies that were written with sufficient certainty by a non-Roman author, however, only marginally mention ele­ ments related to warfare.76 Although the author of the Life of Eligius, Dado of Rouen, was, in all likelihood, of barbarian origin,77 and although his work does document interest in the secular world, considering the fact that he dedicated one of two books to the saint’s period as a layman, the content of his Life does not significantly differ from that of other ecclesi­ astic writers. Regarding warfare it includes, if at all, stories on the saint’s love of and fight for divine justice against malefactors,78 his struggle for 71 See for example Verum Alamanni bella alacriter ineuntes, altius anhelabant, velut quodam furoris afflatu, opposita omnia deleturi. Am. XVI 12.46, p. 288, rabies et inmodicus furor, ibid. XVI 12.31, p. 280, or ultra solitum saevientium, comae fluentes horrebant, et elucebat quidam ex oculis furor. Ibid. XVI 12.36. See also the comparison between barbarians and wild animals in ibid. XVI 5.16–17. 72 See, for example, on the Huns who excipit hic natos glacies et matris ab alvo/ artus infantum molles nix civica durat./pectore vix alitur quisquam, sed ab ubere tractus/ plus potat per valnus equum ; sic lacte relicto/virtutem gens tota bibit. crevere parumper:/ mox pugnam ludunt iaculis ; hos suggerit illis/ nutrix plaga iocos ; pueri venatibus apti/ lustra feris vacuant, rapto ditata iuventus/ iura colit gladii, consummatamque senectam/ non ferro finire pudet : tali ordine vitae/ cives Martis agunt. Sid., Carm. 2, ll. 36–46, p. 175, on the Franks puerilibus annis/ est belli maturus amor. Ibid. 5, ll. 249–50, p. 194; Francus Germanum primum, Belgamque secundum/ sternebat, Rhenumque ferox Alamanne, ibid. 7, ll. 372–3, p. 212, or feroces/ Chunus, Sauromates, Getes, Gelonus, ibid. 23, ll. 242–3, p. 255. Cf. barbaros vitas, quia mali putentur; ego, etiamsi boni. Sid., Epist. VII 14.10, p. 122. See also, Seronatus who inter cives pugnas, inter barbaros litteras, ibid. II 1, p. 21, the context of which clearly shows that for Sidonius, the waging of war was actually a barbar­ ian domain. 73 See, for example paganis ac ferocissimis barbaris. Vit. Ept. 10, p. 190, ferocissimos etiam Vacaeos, Dado, Elig. 1.33, p. 689, or Francorum saevissima feritate, Vit. Aud. 4, p. 556. See also W. Pohl (2007), suggesting that “[a]ny society tends to regard forcers as at least potentially more violent than its own members” and underlines that all the Romans “wanted barbarians to do was to be violent” (p. 25). 74 See, for example, the depiction given by Gregory of Tours of the Lombards, Greg., Hist. 4.42. 75 See above. See also Nicolay (2008), 240–44. 76 Unfortunately the ancient barbarian (Germanic) narrative tradition collected around 800 by Charlemagne has been lost. See Item barbara et antiquissima carmina, quibus veterum regum actus et bella canebantur, scripsit memoriaeque mandavit. Einh., Karol. 29, p. 33. 77 On Dado of Rouen, see McNamara (2001), 137–9, especially p. 137. 78 Dado, Elig. 2.20, 2.47, 2.58, 2.62.



perceiving the world of war99

peace and against human violence,79 and the fight with spiritual weap­ ons.80 The world of war is only touched upon more explicitly when, for example, the author recounted that the saint left his home “armed with the sign of prayer and the cross”, “with pious heart and a spirit strong for battle”,81 to be later sent to the Bretons where he successfully advocated for peace82 and that, “stimulated by the desire for martyr­ dom”,83 he faced by means of his prayers the menaces of the major of the palace Erchinoald.84 The Life of Maurilius of Angers,85 written around 62086 by Bishop Magnobodus of the same episcopal see, who apparently was of Frankish descent as well, shows less concern for the world of war, which it only touches upon when the author stressed that the saint cared for everyone who had been converted to the celestial arms87 or that under his episcopacy wars ceased to be fought, whereas peace multiplied the crops earth procured.88 Apart from their interest in their saint’s life before his ordination,89 neither of these two Lives thus differ to any major extent from compositions of Roman authors. A significant characteristic of these writings appears to be their empha­ sis on peace, not war. A strong interest in and aim for peace also prevails in a majority of the letters composed mostly by barbarian authors bet­ ween 470 and 590 and collected as Epistolae Austrasicae.90 The idea and aim of establishing and maintaining peace between political entities is 79 Dado, Elig. 1.31, 2.15, 2.66. 80 Ibid. 2.8. 81 Egrediens enim domum, orationis et crucus muniebatur signo; regrediens veri domum, oration occurrebat ei prius quam sessio. Taliter nempe agebat cunctis diebus vitae suae et his exercitiis ad aeternam patriam iugiter anhelabat. Erat itaque omnimodo affabilis atque subtilis, corde pius et animo etiam ad belligerandum fortis. Dado, Elig. 1.12, p. 680. Transl. McNamara (2001), 145. Cf. Ibid. 1.34, 2.58, or euangelicis cohortationibus edocebat in fide Christi, ibid. 1.36, p. 693. 82 Denique aliquando rogatus a rege legationem a fungere partibus Brittaniae, nihil ille cunctatus perrexit tam otius, quam Christi caritate securus. Quo cum pervenisset, Brittanorum principem adiit, causas pacti indicavit, pacis obsidem recepit; et cum nonnulli iurgia eos vel bella mutuo sibi indicere aestimarent, tanta praefatum principem benignitate et mansuetudine hac lenitate adtraxit, ut etiam secum eum adducere facile suaderet. Dado, Elig. 1.13, p. 680. Cf. ibid. 1.33. 83 […] ingenti martyrii desiderio stimulates. Dado, Elig. 2.20, p. 711. Transl. J.A. McNamara (2001), 159. 84 Ibid. 2.20. 85 Vit. Maur. 86 B. Krusch: Prooemium, in: MGH AA 4.2 (1885), xxix. 87 […] constitutes ad arma caelestia se converterat, Vit. Maur. 14, col. 74A. 88 […] cessaverant enim bella, pax bona terrae multiplicaverat, ibid. 18, col. 74C. 89 Unlike the Vita Eligii, the Vita Maurilii deals in twelve of thirty sections with the saint’s secular life. 90 Epist. Aus., 110–53.

100

chapter four

prominent in virtually every official correspondence of the Merovingian kings.91 If at all, war was characterised as an acceptable option as long as it was directed against non-Christian enemies and aimed at enlarging the Christian horizon92 – criteria that are thus in perfect accordance with contemporary Christian conceptions.93 A poem titled De excidio Thoringiae,94 either composed by the native-born Thuringian Queen Radegund or on her behalf by her friend Fortunatus,95 can also be under­ stood as advocating peace. It does not contain a positive connotation on war – quite the opposite. The poem does not recount the exploits of the Franks when subjugating the Thuringians, but rather laments the pain suffered during this ‘horrible war’96 by their victims and fate of the young Thuringian princess, who became the captive of a ‘hostile lord’.97 The two texts that prove the most tangible tastes for the world of war were set up by barbarians who had actively served as war-leaders themselves. One of them is the Frank Merobaudes98 who, as seen above, extensively praised in his panegyrics his army leader Aëtius for his martial skills.99 Beyond this, his works contain several mentions with a positive connotation of the waging of war. He claimed, for example, that Aëtius’ breastplate was to him much more a garment than a pro­ tection.100 However, as mentioned above, in his second panegyric he pri­marily emphasised warfare as a means to attain peace,101 even if he did not attribute a particularly negative connotation to warfare itself.102 The second author is the Frankish king Chilperic I himself. He composed 91 See Epist. Aus. 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 43, 44, 48. 92 See, in particular, the letter of Theudebert I to the emperor Justinian: Id vero, quod dignamini esse solliciti, in quibus provinciis habemus aut quae gentes nostrae sint, Deo adiutore, dicione subiecte: Die nostri misericordiam feliciter subactis Thoringiis et eorum provinciis adquisitis, extinctis iosorum tunc tempore regibus, Nordavorum itaque gentem nobis placata maiestate,colla subdentibus edictis ideoque, Deo propito, Wesigotis, incolomes Franciae, septentrionalem plagam Italiaque Pannoniae cum Saxonibus, Euciis, qui se nobis voluntate propria tradiderunt, per Danubium et limitem Pannoniae usque in oceanis literibus custodiente Deo dominatio nostra porrigetur. Epist. Aus. 20, p. 133. Cf. ibid. 18, 46. 93 Other epistles set up by a non-Roman that are still extant are the letters composed by Gogo, the nutricius of Childebert II (Greg., Hist. 5.46). They mainly deal with friendship, whereby they stand in perfect correspondence with the late Roman epistolary tradition. See Epist. Aus. 13, 22. 94 Ex. Thor. 95 Cf. McNamara/Halborg (1992), 65, n. 22. 96 Condicio belli tristis, Ex. Thor., l. 1, p. 271. 97 […] hostili domino, ibid., l. 9, p. 271. 98 Cf. Clover (1971, Translation), 8. 99 Merob., Paneg. 1, IB, ll. 2–10; IIB, ll. 11–16. 100 […] lorica/ non tam munimen quam vestimentum. Ibid. 1, IA, ll. 17–18, p. 62. 101 See ibid. 2, ll. 1–4, ll. 39–43, ll. 189–91. 102 ibid. 2, ll. 35–6, ll. 134–43, ll. 144–54.



perceiving the world of war101

a Ymnus in solemnitate sancti Medardi episcopi103 shortly after 575,104 which basically deals with the life and works of the saint Medard. It does not contain any explicit references to the secular world of warriors. Nevertheless, the author attributed a particular warlike connotation to his hymnus by composing it in the metrical form of a Roman military: the metric trochee septenarius.105 Beyond this, he adopted the idea of the saint being a devoted soldier and athlete.106 The author apparently bor­ rowed this concept from an epitaph composed in the late fourth century by the consul Iovinus,107 which had caught his attention.108 It is impor­ tant to note, however, that the warlike character found from these works should not be considered as evidence for a particular barbarian taste for war. In both cases, this attitude could also have derived from their authors’ own involvement in battle and experience as war-leaders. Beyond this, the contents of Merobaudes’ compositions were certainly characterised by their panegyrical nature. Chilperic’s metric choice, on the other hand, was neither new nor typically barbarian, as Roman authors like Fortunatus had previously composed religious texts in this form.109 To summarise, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to define something that could be called a ‘barbarian taste for war’ by means of the late antique and early medieval testimony given by non-Roman authors. The Liber Historiae Francorum is the only source that does prove such a taste – see for example its depiction of the Franks and their king Clovis110 – and was, 103 Chilp. Ym. See the corrected edition in Kindermann (2002), 257–8. On the hymnus of Chilperic, see also Norberg (1954), 31–40. 104 See Norberg (1954), 39. 105 U. Kindermann (2002, 252) assumes that he got to know this verse from Fortunatus or earlier Christian compositions. However, it is equally possible that comparable military songs were still known in the sixth century, a tradition that would then have been the source of inspiration for Chilperic’s metric choice. 106 Felix militiae deuota, sumsit cingola, culmen,/ Obtinuit athleta castris brauium in secula. Chilp. Ym. ll. 15–16, p. 257. U. Kindermann (2002) underlines, however, that “[w]enn der König z.B. den heiligen Bischof als Athleten sieht, bewegt er sich mit der Bildlichkeit durchaus im Rahmen des frühchristlich Üblichen” (p. 271). 107 U. Kindermann (2002) underlines that “[n]icht nur die Verse 15–16 mit ihrer militärischen Metaphorik, das ganze Gedicht erinnert in manchem an eine feierliche Belobigung eines Soldaten von angetretener Front durch den Truppenführer” (p. 268). 108 This text had been recorded in the tenth century by the historian Flodoard in the church of St. Agricola in Reims. Norberg (1954), 33–4. The text of the inscription is Felix militiae sumpsit devota Iovinus/ Cingula virtutum culmen provectus in altum/ bisuqe datus meritis equitum peditumque magister/ Extulit meritis saecolorum in saecula nomen. CIL XIII 3256. Cited after ibid., p. 33. 109 See Kindermann (2002), 252. 110 On the Franks, see the description of the Trojans presented as their ancestors: Gens illa fortis et valida, viri bellatores. LHF 1, p. 241, or Tunc appellavit eos Valentinianus imperator Francos Attica lingua, hoc est feros, a duritia vel audacia cordis eorum. Ibid. 2,

102

chapter four

in all likelihood, composed by a non-Roman author,111 possibly as late as circa 727. However, barbarians and Romans had co-existed until then for at least two centuries and thus must have acculturated until then to the point that, at least referring to the north of Gaul, it is most problematic to suppose a dichotomy between barbarians and Romans, or barbarians and Christians.112 1.4. Summary Although ecclesiastical writings do particularly emphasise Christian ide­ als and conceptions, it is difficult to distinguish between these composi­ tions and those penned by secular or non-Roman authors with regard to their content or interest for Christian subjects. This comparison of the textual evidence provided by these three groups thus primarily empha­ sises to what extent the fifth to seventh century writings were charac­ terised by Christian values, elitist ideals, and ancient textual tradition, regardless of the provenance of a particular author. This does not mean that the vast majority of the contemporary populace necessarily shared every idea these authors conveyed in writing. 2. Perceiving Military Men The aim of the following section is to discover how military men were characterised and appraised by contemporary authors. To this end, the following sections will begin with a general survey in regard what the sources do and do not tell about those who fought. The second part will p. 243. Similar ibid. 3. On Clovis, see Chlodovechum [..] fuit rex magnum super omnes reges Francorum et puguator fortissimus. Ibid. 7, p. 250. See also Ibid. 9. According to Goffart (1995, 51), the Liber Historiae Francorum is the first to contain heroic narrations. 111 Gerberding (1987), 161. 112 Cf. R.A. Gerberding (2002), underlining that “[i]t would be [..] futile [..] to seek in the author’s general lack of pious phrases and ecclesiastical emphasis an indication of a pagan or Germanic attitude as opposed to a Christian one”; “[f]or the LHF-author there was no dichotomy between military ideals and Christianity”. He assumes that we rather have here a reflection of a Christianity which is “native to the early medieval warrior aristo­ cracy” (p. 160), meaning that the Liber Historiae Francorum proves that the contemporary warrior nobility had successfully assimilated Christian ideas. The Chronicle of Fredegar has not been considered here, as it is very uncertain whether it had been penned by a Roman or barbarian author, just as it remains unclear whether only one single or if up to three different authors were involved in its composition. See the survey and discussions provided in Collins (2007), 8–24. On earlier research on this chron­ icle, see also Wallace-Hadrill (1960), xvi–xxvii. Cf. Gerberding (1987), assuming that “[n]either Fredegar nor Gregory was a Frank” (p. 161).



perceiving the world of war103

deal with the contemporary assessment of their function as military men. The aim of the last section is to provide an idea of the different types of armed men as they can be discerned by means of the sources. 2.1. Writing about Military Men A large majority of the military men mentioned more explicitly by the sources were members of the elite, among them a large number of civil and/or military officers. In late Antiquity, they included the highest mili­ tary commanders, among which the sources provide the largest amount of information on the magister militum Aëtius. The aim of this section is to focus on the information provided by the sources on this late Roman general, in order to find out what those sources emphasise the most about an individual belonging to the fighting part of society. The initial appearance that Aëtius makes in the Gallic sources, although not explicitly,113 is in the first panegyric of Merobaudes. This author pro­ vided a long list of Aëtius’ qualities including, alongside his general apti­ tude as a war-leader,114 determination,115 a humble way of life, and foremost his devotion to his duty.116 The panegyrist also recounted a recent military victory against Goths who had ravaged Roman territory until a majority had been killed by Roman forces under the command of the general.117 Merobaudes’ second panegyric contains the most elabo­ rate depiction of Aëtius’ qualities as a warrior. He is lauded for his martial skills allowing him to lead an army (ll. 98–9), and his lack of greed, giving him the ability not to lose sight of what really was important (ll. 100–1).118 Both qualities reportedly included the love of the population of Gaul (ll. 106–11). What follows is something like a short biography. Starting with praise of the heroic death of Aëtius’ father (ll. 111–15), the author went back to Aëtius’ early years by recounting how he made his first steps in the snow119 and used ice to create toy weapons to play battle-games (ll. 121–6). At a very young age, he had been captured by the Visigoths to be the 113 Apparently there has never been considerable doubts about the identity of the unnamed general praised in his panegyrics, see Clover (1971, Translation), 33; 41. Aëtius is explicitly mentioned in Merob., Paneg. 2, l. 106. 114 Merob., Paneg. 1, frag. IIA, ll. 7–8. 115 Merob., Paneg. 1, frag. 1B, ll. 9–11. 116 Merob., Paneg. 1, frag. 1A, ll. 15–23; 1B, ll. 2–9. 117 Merob., Paneg. 1, frag. IIB, ll. 15–24. 118 Cf. Clover (1971, Translation), 56. 119 Aëtius was born in Durostorum, in modern Silistra, in the very north of Bulgaria, i.e. in ancient Lower Moesia. See PLRE 2, p. 21.

104

chapter four

guarantee for a treaty established with the Romans.120 As a hostage, he reportedly finally broke the enemy’s rage (ll. 127–34), as they admired the boy for the skills in the art of war he increasingly developed. According to the panegyrist, the Visigothic king finally offered a quiver and further mil­ itary instructions to the boy (ll. 135–43). Later, Aëtius reportedly had been able to reestablish peace due to his particular talent as a war-leader by fighting equally strong Goths in an unusually short time, an achievement Merobaudes emphasised by comparing it to Caesar’s subjugation of Gaul.121 The panegyrist stressed that although the Roman forces under the command of Caesar had been superior to the barbarians, it took them ten years to subdue their enemies (ll. 144–53; 63). Beyond this, Aëtius’ particu­ lar skill is illustrated by the example of a siege which, although in the tac­ tical disadvantage, he had ended with the surrender of the enemy and, apparently, a peace treaty (ll. 154–97). Merobaudes’ depiction of Aëtius’ military skills is the most open commendation for martial abilities to be found in the written sources composed in Gaul between the fifth and seventh centuries. This is cer­ tainly due to a large extent to the panegyrical nature of this composi­ tion. The panegyrics composed by Sidonius Apollinaris were not directly addressed to Aëtius, but to the current emperors. Consequently, Aëtius’ martial skills were primarily mentioned to enhance the commendations directed to the addressed ruler. In his panegyric on Avitus – the emperor had previously served under Aëtius’ command – for example, Aëtius’ talents were called ‘outstanding in the arts of war’, suggesting that Avitus’ achievements were even more praiseworthy.122 In the same man­ ner, in a letter Sidonius complemented his friend Ferreolus for having succeeded by diplomacy in causing the Goths to withdraw from Arles as Aëtius, the ‘Liberator of the Loire’,123 had previously failed to expel them by force.124 Other sources recount rather soberly the achievements so vividly depicted by Merobaudes. Contemporary chronicles, according to the 120 Cf. Clover (1971, Translation), 56. 121 Cf. ibid. 58. 122 Aetium interea, Scythico quia saepe duello est edoctus, sequeris; qui, quamquam celsus in armis, nil sine te gessit, cum plurima tute sine illo. nam post Iuthungos et Norica bella subacto victor Vindelico Belgam, Burgundio quem trux presserat, absolvit iunctus tibi. Sid., Carm. 7, ll. 230–5, p. 209. Cf. ibid. ll. 299–340. 123 Aetius Ligeris liberatorem. Sid., Epist. VII 12.3, p. 118. 124 Praetermisit regem Gothiae ferocissimum inflexum: affatu tuo melleo gravi, arguto inusitato, et ab Arelatensium portis quem Aetius non potuisset proelio te prandio removisse. Sid., Epist. VII 12.3, p. 119.



perceiving the world of war105

genre of this source, often only gave very short accounts of related events. Praise for Aëtius’ skills can be found in the anonymous Gallic Chronicle composed around the year 452. A note on the year 436 points out that the latter had almost destroyed the entire Burgundian people in what is called a ‘memorable’ war.125 The Chronicle of Prosper of Aquitaine focussed less on the military character of this same victory,126 and in opposition to the previous chronicle, it also accounted for Aëtius’ defeats,127 even if it con­ sistently drew a positive picture of Aëtius’ tactical skills.128 This inconsis­ tency might be explained by the author’s preference for emphasising the role of the Church, as suggested by the fact that he preferred to attribute the peace established with the Huns to the presence of Bishop Leo of Rome rather than to Aëtius’ skills as a military leader.129 Nevertheless, speaking of the combined victory against the Huns fought by Goths and Romans under Aëtius’ command, Prosper did admit that this success was possible due to the former’s foresight, as he had speedily collected as many men able to take up weapons as possible.130 The picture of Aëtius provided by the Life of Germanus of Auxerre is likewise positive. It recounts, for example, how the Alans had been sent by Aëtius to calm the trouble-causing Armoricans by honouring the gen­ eral with the epithet ‘the Magnificent’.131 Comparably, the Life of Anianus 125 Bellum contra Burgundionum memorabile exarsit, quo universa paene gens cum rege per Aetium deleta. Chron. 452., a. 436, p. 660. 126 Eodem tempore Gundicharium Burgundionum regem intra Gallias habitantem Aetius bello obtrivit pacemque ei supplicanto dedit. Prosp., Chron. a. 435 [1322], 475. See also Arelas nobile oppidum Galliarum a Gothis multa vi oppugnatum est, donec inminente Aetio non inpuniti absederent. Prosp., Chron. a. 425, p. 471. 127 Prosp., Chron. a. 432. 128 See Attila redintegratis viribus, quas in Gallia amiserat, Italiam ingredi per Pannonias intendit, nihil duce nostro Aetio secundum prioris belli opera prospiciente, ita ut ne clusuris quidem Alpium, quibus hostes prohiberi poterant, uterotur, hoc solum spebus suis superesse existimans, si ab omni Italia cum imperatore discederet. Prosp., Chron. a. 452, p. 482. 129 […] suscepit hoc negotium cum viro consulari Avieno et viro praefectorio Trygetio beatissimus papa Leo auxilio dei fretus, quem sciret numquam piorum laboribus defuisse. nec aliud secutum est quam praesumpserat fides. nam tota legatione dignanter accepta ita summi sacerdotis praesentia rex gavisus est, ut et bello abstinere praeciperet et ultra Danuvium promissa pace discederet. Prosp., Chron. a. 452, p. 482. 130 Sed cum transito Rheno saevissimos eius impetus multae Gallicanae urbes experirentur, cito et nostris et Gothis placuit, ut furori superborum hostium consociatis exercitibus repugnaretur, tantaque patricii Aetii providentia fuit, ut raptim congregatis undique bellatoribus viris adversae multitudini non inpar occurreret. Prosp., Chron. a. 451, p. 481. 131 Offensus enim superbae insolentia regionis vir magnificus Aetius, qui tum rem publicam gubernabat, Gochari ferocissimo Alanorum regi loca illa inclinanda pro rebellionis praesumptione permiserat, quae ille aviditate barbaricae cupiditatis inhiaverat. Const., Germ. 28, pp. 271–2.

106

chapter four

of Orleans132 described him as a man of apparent dignity and formidable virtues.133 In the context of the saint pleading with Aëtius for help in order to save his city, threatened by the Huns,134 the latter was characterised as the divine aid arriving in time to prevent the despoilment of the city.135 The same course of events is reported in the Histories of Gregory of Tours who, certainly based on an earlier Life of Anianus of Orleans,136 related in some detail how the saint exhorted the inhabitants of Orléans to pray for the help of Aëtius. The general subsequently saved the city from the afflic­ tion of a Hunnic looting by defeating the enemy on a nearby plain.137 Most Lives, however, contented themselves with mentioning the military commander only when he appeared in relation to events that were significant to their protagonist’s life and deeds, as in the case of the Vita Genovefae reporting how Genevieve saved Paris with her prayers, just as Ainianus had done until Aëtius saved his episcopal see of Orleans.138 Subsequent to his account of Aëtius’ rescue of Orleans, Gregory added elements unknown by earlier sources from Gaul. This includes, for exam­ ple, an anecdote about Aëtius’ wife in Rome. Having heard of the dangers her husband had been in, she reportedly started praying for his safe return.139 In opposition to the hagiographic evidence just mentioned, Gregory stressed that, although the banishment of the Huns from Arles had certainly been supported by the saint’s exertion, Aëtius and his supporters had actually obtained the victory.140 Following his account of 132 Vit. Ani. For a re-dating of this Life to the sixth century, see Loyen (1969), 70–4, accepted more recently by Banniard (1978), 20. According to S. Barnish, it is even possible that this Life is the laudation on Anianus that had been promised by Sidonius Apollinaris in Epist. VIII 15. See Barnish (1992), 38. 133 Et cum multa spatia itenerum pertransisset, venit ad inlustrem Agetium patricium virum dignitatis suae perspicuum, virtute egregia invictum. Vit. Ani. 7, p. 112. 134 Ibid. 7. 135 Ibid. 10. See T. Stickler (2002) underlining that in the Vita Aniani “steht für die Erzähler nicht der römische Feldherr Aëtius im Mittelpunkt der Darstellung; er ist vielmehr nur Teil der Kulisse, vor der sich das Wirken der eigentlichen Helden, nämlich des Gegenkönigs Theoderich I. auf der einen, des Bischofs Anianus auf der anderen Seite, vollzieht.” (p. 305). 136 This earliest Life might be the version still extant, as suggested by A. Loyen (1969, 70–74). 137 Greg., Hist. 2.7. Similar LHF 5. For a comparison of the account given by Gregory to the one provided by the Vita Aniani, see Banniard (1978), 17–20. 138 Vit. Genov. 12. 139 Greg., Hist. 2.7. 140 Nam nullus ambigat, Chunorum exercitum obtentu memorati antestites fuisse fugatum. Verum Aetius patritius cum Thorismodo victuriam obtinuit hostesque delivit. Greg., Hist. 2.7, p. 50. Cf. the translation by R. Buchner and W. Giesebrechts (1955), 79, and the interpretation of the same sentence in Barnish (1992), 43.



perceiving the world of war107

the battle between Romans and Huns, on the other hand, he added that Aëtius used deceit to make a now associated Gothic prince and an unnamed Frankish king withdraw hastily, which allowed him to go home with an even larger amount of booty.141 In the following section, Gregory resumed the description of Aëtius that he found in the History of Renatus Frigeridus, a work that is no longer extant. He started with an account of Aëtius’ father, Gaudentius from Scythia, mentioned that his mother had been a noble woman from Italy, and subsequently referred to his ascen­ sion to the office of a magister equitum. Gregory likewise alluded that Aëtius had entered the praetorian guard and had been sent at an early age as a hostage to the Goths and the Huns. What followed is the most detailed description of a non-royal military man found in Merovingian sources: Aëtius was of medium height, manly in his habits and well-proportioned. He had no bodily infirmity and was spare in physique. His intelligence was keen, he was full of energy, a superb horseman, a fine shot with an arrow and tireless with the lance. He was extremely able as a soldier and he was skilled in the arts of peace. There was no avarice in him and even less cupid­ ity. He was magnanimous in his behaviour and never swayed in his judge­ ment by the advice of unworthy counsellors. He bore adversity with great patience, was ready for any exacting enterprise, he scorned danger and was able to endure hunger, thirst and loss of sleep. From his earliest youth it was clear that he was destined by fate to hold high position and that much would be heard of him when his time came and occasion offered.142

His account ended with the general’s death, murdered by order of the emperor Valentinian, who reportedly feared that the former had become too powerful for him.143 Gregory’s description of Aëtius was adopted in a slightly altered ver­ sion by the seventh-century Chronicle of Fredegar.144 The accounts pro­ vided by both compositions have strong similarities to the description given by Merobaudes, a fact that suggests that Renatus might have used this panegyric as a source. The Chronicle of Fredegar also showed a 141 Greg., Hist. 2.7. 142 Medii corporis, virilis habitudinis, decenter formatus, quo neque infirmitudini esset neque oneri, animo alacer, membris vegitus, eques prumptissimus, sagittarum iactu peritus, contu inpiger, bellis aptissimus, pacis artibus celebris, nullius avaritiae, minimae cupiditatis, bonis animi praeditus, ne inpulsoribus quidem pravis ab instituto suo devians, iniuriarum patientissimus, laboris adpetens, inpavidus periculorum, famis, sitis, vigiliarum tolerantissimus. Cui ab ineunte aetate praedictum liquet, quantae potentiae fatis distinaretur, temporibus suis locisque celebrandus. Greg., Hist. 2.8, pp. 51–2. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 119. 143 Greg., Hist. 2.8. 144 See Fred. 3.1.

108

chapter four

particular interest in strategies, especially cunning, which was the main plot for several stories, including one describing the general’s victory in Orleans. According to his version it was not Anianus who had begged Aëtius for help; rather, the latter asked the former to go and ask for the help of the Gothic king. In return, he was promised half of Gaul. The same pledge and promise is also addressed to the king of the Huns, who subse­ quently asked the Romans to defend Gaul against the Goths. In the end, both barbarian armies reportedly suffered enormous losses, while the city itself had been saved by Anianus’ prayers. The chronicle recounts that during one of the two nights when the battle was fought on the Mauriac Plain, Aëtius went to meet each opponent separately to pretend he was warning each of them that a much stronger enemy force was on its way. Both armies thereupon retreated, and Aëtius followed the Huns. To pre­ vent a nocturnal attack by the enemy, he used deceit a third time, this time by ordering his troops to light ten fires in the near vicinity of their own encampments to pretend that their troops were more numerous than they actually were.145 In contrast to Aëtius, the majority of military men are only known by the means of one, and in rare cases two (independent), sources allowing comparison of the information they provide. Non-elite military men remain virtually unmentioned by the sources146 beyond their shadowy appearance as a member of an armed troop. This brief survey of the infor­ mation provided by the sources on one of the best known generals illus­ trates what the written records were able to tell in the most detail, even if they all too often did not.147 The survey also shows the extent to which the picture conveyed by a single source on a specific subject or person was dependent on and influenced by its respective genre, the aim and interest of its author, and the expectations supposed of the focused audience. This is knowledge that should be considered in regard to every statement subsequently analysed in this context. 2.2. Contemporary Assessment of Military Men Military men could positively distinguish themselves from the masses by acting in a particularly praiseworthy manner in critical situations like battle. Most societies confronted more intensely with armed violence expected those who fought to outperform in martial courage or excellence, 145 Fred. 2.53. Cf. Barnish (1992), 43–4. 146 See the rare example of Dado of Tours, Greg., Patr. 8.11. 147 On the still scarce evidence on Aëtius, see Stickler (2002), 305–6.



perceiving the world of war109

which was then celebrated in songs or any other form of heroic narration. W.A. Goffart, however, argues that in Gaul: […] there was no heroic literature. Christianity got in the way. From the fourth century, at least, the leaders of opinion were bent on devaluing the martial virtues and on promoting a different, Christian heroism, practiced by victims of persecution and modelled on Christ’s own sacrifice. Martial heroism hibernated. It would make a literary comeback; traces of its return are discernible in the eighth century.148

W.A. Goffart adds that “the narratives do not show heroic behaviour or expectations.”149 The definition implicitly contained in his study regard­ ing heroic literature includes narratives characterised by a certain emphasis on battle-stories; stories of martial virtues like courage, strength, bravery, persistence, and self-sacrifice, implying that the actor is considered useful to society; and depictions of warriors as superhumans.150 Although his argument seems solid at first glance, his conclu­ sions require a re-valuation. The sources do not completely lack positive depictions of military men or warlike behaviour. Some fifth-century sources do contain narrative ele­ ments that W.A. Goffart would define as heroic. The depiction Sidonius gave of his brother-in-law Ecdicius in a letter to the same, for example, encompassed all four elements enumerated above. Sidonius recounted in some detail how his brother-in-law faced on an open plain a Gothic host threatening the civitas of Clermont. According to him, the enemy was so stupefied by Ecdicius’ presence that he did not dare to face him, although the enemy was clearly superior in number. As a result, Ecdicius could return to his home city without losses.151 Beyond this, Sidonius accounted for several armed encounters between Goths and this same brotherin-law having collected some sort of public force by his own private means. According to Sidonius, his host only lost two or three men at a time, whereas they could inflict so many casualties on the enemy that the Goths thought it necessary to use tricks in order to disguise their num­ ber.152 Sidonius praised Ecdicius’ martial skills by underlining that his break through the enemy line would be hardly credited by posterity, as well as speaking of his early trainings in the art of hunting, horse-riding, 148 Goffart (2002), 387. 149 Goffart (1995), 41. 150 Cf. Goffart (2002), 368; (1995), 42–5. 151 Sid., Epist. III 3.3–5. See also M.-L. Heckmann (2006), who had already suggested that there has been some heroism described in sources before the eighth century. 152 Sid., Epist. III 3.7–8.

110

chapter four

and archery.153 According to his account, virtually every inhabitant of Clermont loved him for his achievements, many among them have been watching him fight from the city walls154 and running to meet and applaud him and his men at their return.155 Sidonius’ thanks to Ecdicius for his support and his claim for his quick return,156 as well as the grateful rejoic­ ing of the population, leave no doubt that Ecdicius’ martial skills were depicted in a positive way and were encouraged by society, which consid­ ered him useful. Moreover, his depiction contains super-human charac­ teristics, as when he reportedly faced several thousand Goths who did not dare to offend him while traversing an open plain, and this although he was only accompanied by eighteen men.157 It is intriguing that, one cen­ tury later, Gregory of Tours even decreased this number to ten,158 whereas the Chronicle of Fredegar only speaks of ‘a few’ men facing ‘many’.159 Other fifth-century sources likewise contain comparable narrative ele­ ments. The positive connotation attributed in Merobaudes’ first panegy­ ric to Aëtius’ campaigns, for example, was emphasised when mentioning positive rumours of his recent conquests, and even quoted the testimony given by one of its participants.160 Merobaudes reported that:   […] I met someone who  related that he had participated in your recent campaigns. ‘All the forces of the Goths,’ he exclaimed, ‘had sallied forth with their king, to ravage Roman territory. When our leader learned of this –‘ – no longer did I wait for him to say, ‘He went forth  and joined in conflict,’ for I did not doubt that this was done by you; I asked immediately where, how, and how many you had put to flight.  ‘At the mountain,’ he then replied, ‘Which the ancients as if by premonition called Snake Mountain […],  he surprised – as is his custom – and killed the greatest part of the enemy; Once the infantry units, which were very numerous, were routed,  he himself followed hard on the scattering cavalry troops. 153 Ibid. III 3.3. 154 Ibid. III 3.3. 155 Ibid. III 3.5–6. 156 Ibid. III 3.1, 3.9. 157 Non enim potest umquam civicis pectoribus elabi, quem te quantumque nuper omnis aetas ordo sexus e semirutis murorum aggeribus conspicabantur, cum interiectis aequoribus in adversum perambulates et vix duodevigniti equitum sodalitate comitatus aliquot milia Gothorum non minus die quam campo medio, quod difficile sit posteritas creditura, transisti. Sid., Epist. III 3.3, p. 41. 158 Nam quadam vice multitudinem Gothorum cum decim viris fugasse perscribitur. Greg., Hist. 2.24, p. 70. 159 Aedicius mirae velocitatis fuit; pluris vicibus multitudinem Gothorum cum paucis in fugam convertit. Fred. 3.14, p. 98. 160 Merob., Paneg. 1, frag. IIB, ll. 6–10.



perceiving the world of war111 And overwhelmed those standing fast with his might,  and those fleeing with his eager rapidity. Not long afterwards the king himself was on hand  with the remainder of his forces, and, stupefied with sudden horror near the trampled bodies.161

Contemporary chronicles confirm the existence of a positive connotation given to achievements in the art of war, as when the Chronicle of Prosper of Aquitaine stated that Boniface was a man famous for his martial tal­ ents162 and that Vitricus was known for his frequent demonstrations of his skills in battle.163 Moreover, Prosper expressed gratitude for military achievements when he described how Narbonne, besieged by Goths while its inhabitants suffered hunger, had been saved by Litorius, who put the aggressors to flight and distributed grain among the starving popula­ tion.164 Nevertheless, Prosper regretted that although this same Litorius had all he needed to inflict a significant defeat to the enemy, he failed to do so as he acted carelessly.165 Sidonius too left no doubt about the general necessity for Rome to dis­ pose of men with talents in the arts of war and ready to fight, which implies that he must have recognised their usefulness.166 In his letter to his friend Eucherius, he regretted that although the Goths threatened the Romans in their vicinity, men with exceptional martial talents had failed less in their attempts to relieve the Roman needs than the state had done by failing to reward its soldiers for trying to do so.167 In a letter to his wife, Sidonius expressed his delight at hearing that her brother Ecdicius had 161 […] quendam qui se tuis re/centibus gestis interfuisse memoraret./ ‘Gothorum’ inquit ‘manu universa cum rege/ exierat Romana populatum. Hoc ut dux comperit’ –/ i)am non expectavi ut diceret: ‘progressus est, ma/num contulit’, neque enim haec a te acta dubitabam,/ quaesivi statim, ubi qualiter quantosve fudis/ses. tunc ille: ‘ad montem’ inquit ‘quem Colubra/rium quasi praescia vocavit antiquitas […]/, maximam/ hostium partem inprovisus, ut solet, neci dedit/ f )usisque peditum copiis, quae plurimae erant, ipse/ p)alantes turmas persecutus stantes robore,/ f )ugientes alacritate conpressit. nec multo/ p)ost rex ipse cum reliquis copiis suis adfuit/ d)efixusque horrore subito calcata prope cadavera. Merob., Paneg. 1, frag. IIB, ll. 9–24, p. 64. Transl. F.M. Clover (1971, Translation), 13. 162 Qui Bonifatium virum bellicis artibus satis clarum inepto in iniurioso imprio ab expeditionis suae societate averti. Prosp., Chron. a. 422, p. 469. 163 Victricus rei publicae nostrae fidelis et multis documentis bellicis clarus habebatur. Prosp., Chron. a. 439, p. 477. 164 Prosp., Chron. a. 436. 165 Prosp., Chron. a. 439. 166 See Sid., Carm. 2, l. 316, ll. 382–4, 5, ll. 1–3. Cf. Sid., Epist. IV 17.1, VIII 6.1. Avitus of Vienne draws a comparably positive picture of the military achievements of Apollinaris when he writes ita vobis favente Christo militari actu magis magisque florentibus. Avit., Epist. 51, p. 81. 167 Quamquam mirandum granditer non sit, natione foederatorum non solum inciviliter Romanas vires administrante verum etiam fundamentaliter eruente, si nobilium virorum

112

chapter four

been awarded the title patrician as a reward for his military achieve­ ments.168 Some of Sidonius’ contemporaries apparently showed their admiration for the military even more openly. A certain Domnitius took great pleasure in watching armed men, according to Sidonius, which was why his friend sent him a letter with a detailed description of the follow­ ing of the prince Sigismer,169 an account that provides valuable details on their clothing and armament.170 It is true, nevertheless, that Merovingian sources tend to downplay acts that could be considered heroic.171 But even though sources like the Histories of Gregory of Tours do not contain heroic characters,172 they do contain heroic moments. Although Gregory did not explicitly praise Mummolus for his military achievements and gave a rather un-heroic description of his death,173 he did not leave a negative comment on him.174 He specified, on the contrary, that Mummolus had never been defeated.175 Comparable details may have derived from stories that contemporaries told each other of renowned military men, stories that would certainly have been an important source for Gregory’s compositions. It is very likely that several among these stories were initially diffused orally as heroic narrations, which were subsequently altered in detail to serve a specific author’s own intentions. These heroic moments, which might have been central to an original oral version, were not always entirely hidden. This is particularly true regarding two stories about two would-be usurpers who fought against a superior opponent until defeated. The early sixthcentury pretender Munderic, who reportedly had fled to the castrum Vitry, as his armed force was not strong enough to resist King Theuderic I, apparently declared that the pretender and his men would fight until death and would thus never surrender to the enemy, as he hurled javelins towards their fortress. As the king’s attempts to get him out of there by militariumque et supravel spem nostrae vel opinionem patris adversae bellicosorum non tam defuerint facta quam praemia. Sid., Epist. III 8.2, p. 45. 168 Sid., Epist. V 16.1. 169 On the various theses regarding Sigismer’s ethnic affiliation, see Rummel (2007), 174. 170 Sid., Epist. IV 20.1–3. 171 See Goffart (2002), 370–4. 172 Heinzelmann (1997) also underlines that in Gregory’s Histories, “positive Würdigungen (adliger) Laien sind, nimmt man die Könige einmal aus, an einer Hand auf­ gezählt” (p. 247). 173 Greg., Hist. 7.39. 174 See Greg., Hist. 4.42. According to Wynn (2001, 29), Gregory stylised Clovis as the ideal warrior supported by God, whereas Mummolus represents the realistic version of the same. 175 Multa enim Mummolus bella gessit, in quibus victur extetit. Greg., Hist. 4.45, p. 180.



perceiving the world of war113

force had been unsuccessful, he asked his confidant Aregisel to make Munderic aware of the futility of his undertaking and to give him a false oath of safe-conduct, should he agree to surrender. Gregory, however, stressed Munderic’s un-heroic character by stating that he only agreed to give in because he had been promised that his own life would be spared.176 When Aregisel gave the signal to his men to kill Munderic as he left his stronghold, the latter reportedly quickly understood what had happened to him and avenged his own death by cutting his opponent to pieces and killing every follower of Aregisel he could reach. This rather heroic moment, again, was downplayed by Gregory who hastily ended the story by explaining that Munderic had been finally killed and that his property was passed to the royal treasury.177 In a comparable set of circumstances, dating a few decades later, an armed host of Childebert II under the com­ mand of a certain Godigisel reportedly headed to a small church on the top of a hill where the would-be usurpers Ursio and Bertefred had shut up themselves in, along with their relatives and their belongings. The besieg­ ers soon set fire to the church, whereupon Ursio put on his weapons, left the building, and killed every offender in his reach, including a certain comes palatii called Tradulf. His opponents were apparently only able to strike Ursio down after he had run out of breath.178 Although both stories undercut heroism, as W.A. Goffart is right to point out,179 it seems highly likely that an earlier, possibly oral, version had existed that did not do so. In this case, it was in all likelihood Gregory who added these minimising elements in order to adjust the stories to his own purpose, i.e. demon­ strating that the world was entirely controlled by God who was the only authority that could award glory. The lack of more intense dealings with military prowess in the panegy­ rical writings of Venantius Fortunatus, which has already been deter­ mined above, is more unexpected. Unlike in Gregory’s Histories, Chris­tianity could not have obstructed martial prowess here, and the warlike charac­ ter of Merovingian kingship might even have encouraged its praise. Nevertheless, Fortunatus dealt almost parenthetically with the kings’ 176 Ad haec Mundericus respondit: ‘Utinam securus sim, quod non interficiar! Greg., Hist. 3.14, p. 111. 177 Evaginatumque deinceps Mundericus gladium, cum suis magnam stragem de populo illo fecit, et usque spiritum exalavit, interficere quemcumque adsequi potuisset non distitit. Quo interfecto, res eius fisco conlatae sunt. Greg., Hist. 3.14, p. 112. 178 Cumque iam annillis de caede Ursio cerneretur, percussus a quodam in femore, debilitatus ad terram ruit et sic, inruentibus aliis, vitam finivit. Greg., Hist. 9.12, p. 427. 179 Goffart (2002), 371.

114

chapter four

military achievements. Chilperic is the only king associated more expli­ citly with martial virtues.180 The only compositions that contained more elaborate references to military prowess were his poems dedicated to the domesticus Conda and the dux Lupus of Champagne.181 In his panegyric on the dux Lupus, Fortunatus did not go straight to the subject but began by emphasising the Duke’s military virtues in conjunction with the most Roman civil talent: his eloquence. He compared his voice to a javelin, his speech to a lance, his voice to an arm, and called Lupus himself Sigibert’s augur for victory.182 After stating that Lupus governed in times of peace but combatted in times of war,183 Fortunatus went on to give a slightly more elaborate description of a recent battle that had been successfully waged against the Saxons and the Danes. His talent as a war-leader was highlighted in this context by attributing the enemy’s speedy defeat to Lupus’ virtus and his orders during the combat. His manliness and acting as a victorious combatant was pointed out in a description of how Lupus gleamed in the dust of the field, with perspiration under his mail shirt, while he persecuted the enemy until his passage was obstructed by the river Laugona.184 However, Fortunatus did not develop this subject in further detail and immediately moved to a description of Lupus’ position at the royal court of his king Sigibert. Conda’s military involvement was likewise only mentioned due to a recent combat against the Saxons, a battle in the context of which the domesticus is congratulated for having participated despite his advanced age. Although the mention of the death of his two sons in this conflict would have provided the perfect context for a heroic depiction of their combat and death, Fortunatus left out both and only mentioned how they lay dead in their tombs. Their brave fight was mentioned only later when the poet attempted to console their father. 180 Fort., Carm. 9.1. See M. Reydellet (1981) who assumes that “ce panégyrique est trop lié aux circonstances et à la personne de Chilpéric pour qu’il soit possible d’y discerner un idéal du roi en général.” (p. 330). 181 Cf. Roberts (2009), 57–9. 182 […] te respondente ligantur et iaculo verbi mox iacuere tui./ lancea sermo fuit, quoque vox armata loquentis,/ auspicium palmae te Sigibercthus habet. Fort., Carm. 7.7, ll. 25–8, p. 159. 183 […] bella moves armis, iura quiete regis. Fort., Carm. 7.7, l. 46, p. 160. 184 […] quae tibi sit virtus cum prosperitate superna,/ Saxonis et Dani gens cito victa probat./ Bordaa quo fluvius sinuoso gurgite currit,/ hic adversa acies te duce caesa ruit./ dimidium vestris iussis tunc paruit agmen;/ quam merito vincit qui tua iussa facit!/ ferratae tunicae sudasti pondere victor/ et sub pulverea nube coruscus eras,/ tamque diu pugnax acie fugiente secutus,/ Laugona dum vitreis terminus esset aquis./ qui fugiebat iners, amnis dedit ille sepulchrum:/ pro duce felici flumina bella gerunt. Fort., Carm. 7.7, ll. 49–60, p. 160. According to M.J. Roberts (2009) “the topoi-clouds of dust, bodies and rivers – ultimately [derive] from epic” (p. 58).



perceiving the world of war115

And although the last related statement that ‘those who fight for glory live forever’185 gives evidence of a world of thought where a man could have excelled through his courageous conduct in battle, Fortunatus did not make this idea central to his description of the boys’ deaths; it was only added to further comfort Conda. His poem dedicated to Mummolus, one of the most brilliant Merovingian military leaders – according to Gregory186 – does not explicitly mention warlike activity at all. The only exception is when Fortunatus apparently adapted his poem’s content to the addressee’s taste by jokingly comparing the banquet at the centre of his poem to a magnificent battle fought in his stomach.187 It is difficult to explain the exceptionally unwarlike contents of Fortunatus’ works, in particular when contrasting them to the warlike accounts of the same personalities given in Gregory’s Histories. Were Fortunatus’ narrations the result of his own personal taste, as he had apparently always been more interested in spiritual matters than in military issues?188 It is also possible that the poet aimed at meeting a particular elitist taste. It is not unthink­ able that the military elite and their kings preferred literary elements with a particular Roman character, as suggested by the emphasis in several poems on qualities like eloquence or justice. Although military prowess was certainly not considered a negative feature, it must not necessarily have represented what a member of the upper elite or a guest of the royal court expected or wanted to have emphasised most. The tendency to minimise military prowess, however, ceased in the seventh century. This becomes particularly clear regarding the depiction provided by the Chronicle of Fredegar of the Franks, starting with his Frankish origo. As P. Fouracre is right to stress, the portrayal of violence contained in this chronicle “does not serve the purpose of contrasting good and bad behaviour”, as in Gregory’s Histories.189 The chronicle began its account with a description of how the Trojans gave birth to two tribes 185 […] quae fuerit virtus, tristis Saxonia cantat:/ laus est arma truci non timuisse seni./ pro patriae votis et magno regis amore/ quo duo natorum funera cara iacent./ nec graviter doleas cecidisse viriliter ambos,/ nam pro laude mori vivere semper erit. Fort., Carm. 7.16, ll. 46–52, pp. 171–2. An idea comparable to the one included in the last statement can be found in a poem directed to the diacon Sindulfus, aiming at encouraging him to follow the example of the military combatant in his struggle for Christian virtues, in Fort., Carm. 3.30, ll. 15–18, p. 77. 186 Cf. Greg., Hist. 4.42, 4.44, 4.45, 5.13, 6.26. 187 […] alter in alterius rectabat mole susurros/ et sine me mecum pugna superba fuit. Fort., Carm. 7.14, ll. 35–6, p. 170. Similar nam fit lis uteri, si caro mixta fremat. Ibid. 7.2, l. 7, p. 155. 188 Cf. J. George (1992), 151. 189 Fouracre (1998), 62.

116

chapter four

that subsequently separated to become the Macedonians and the Franks, the latter named after their first leader, Francio.190 The main feature attributed to both tribes – as both were considered to be of the same origin – was their skill in the art of war. This was stressed regarding the Macedonians by calling them brave warriors,191 whereas the Frankish skills were emphasised by mentioning their military successes, achieved under the command of their new leader, against a larger number of ene­ mies.192 The chronicle points out that the Franks had not been defeated since ancient times.193 A few sections later, the same chronicle contains a particularly positive picture of the Roman military leader Belisar lauded for his qualities as a person194 and in his function as a military com­ mander.195 These praises, however, were not unsubstantiated but aimed at further emphasising the military skills of the Franks who, nevertheless, could finally defeat the Roman who subsequently lost his life and fame.196 Neither here, nor in other sections, did the chronicle conceal that a man could seek and attain glory by means of military success. It recounts, for example, how the Byzantine Antonia encouraged her husband Belisarius to defeat the Vandals with God’s help, so that he could become even more famous than he already was.197 The same esteem for warlike qualities and heroic behaviour is prominent in his account of the ‘excellent’ Avarian warrior Xerxes who, after killing every Goth that the ‘Macedonian’ Theoderic had sent to defeat him, was finally vanquished and tied up after 190 Fred. 2.4. 5. 191 Per quos postea cum subiuncti in plurima procreatione crevissent, ex ipso genere Macedonis fortissimi pugnatores effecti sunt; quod in postremum in diebus Phyliphy Regis et Alexandri fili sui fama confirmat, illorum fortitudine quails fuit. Fred. 2.4, pp. 45–6. 192 In postremum, eo quod fortissimus ipse Francio in bellum fuisse fertur, et multo tempore cum plurimis gentibus pugnam gerens, partem Asiae vastans, in Eurupam dirigens, inter Renum vel Danuvium et mare consedit. Fred. 2.5, p. 46. 193 Post haec nulla gens usque in praesentem diem Francos potuit superare, qui tamen eos suae dicione potuisse subiugare. Fred. 2.6, p. 46. Cf. Multis post temporibus cum ducibus externas dominationis semper negantes. Ibid. 3.2, p. 93. Apud Carbonaria, de Francis stragies fietur. Post Eaclio et Ioviano cum exercito ultra Renum transeuntis, disponentis Francos ad internicionem persucere, tantae stragies ex militibus a Francis factae sunt, ut Aeraclius et Iovianus cum paucis de eodem prilio potuissent evadere nec ulterius adversus Francos praesumpserunt arma adrepere. Ibid. 3.3, pp. 93–4. Cf. the warlike description provided of the ‘Trojans’ in LHF 1. Comparably, as M. Banniard (1978, 15–29) could show, Gregory of Tours emphasised the role of the Franks, but in this case to the detriment of the Arian Goths. 194 See especially his loyalty towards his friend and emperor Justinian, Fred. 2.62. 195 Bellesarius multa prilia cum Persis agens, eos gloriosissime vicit. Fred. 2.62, p. 88. 196 A Buccelenum quidam Franco in Aetalia superatus est: tantae victoriae nomenis gloriosus a Bucceleno victus, nomen vitamque admisit. Fred. 2.62, p. 88. According to Agathias, Hist. 1.6, Buccelenus was of Alamannic origin. 197 […] scias: illius virtutem et solatium Wandalus superabis, et eris ob hoc gloriosior, quam fuisses. Fred. 2.62, p. 87.



perceiving the world of war117

a prolonged duel with the latter. The chronicle stressed that Theoderic admired the fortitude and bravery of the Avar to the extent that he tried everything to make the vanquished foe swear fidelity to him.198 These positive depictions of military prowess were not restricted to the chroni­ cle’s earlier books. A section included in the last book, for example, recounted how the Frank Samo had become the king of the Slavs after proving his bravery in battle.199 The very last chapter also includes the story of a man called Chaubedo who, with the help of God, saved his father Berthar injured in battle from certain death by attacking another man called Manaulf with his lance. He subsequently avenged his father’s injury by killing every man who had previously struck him.200 This story, again, reflects more than one characteristic feature of heroic narrative: it emphasises the battle scene, the protagonist’s courage, bravery, and selfsacrifice, as well as his outstanding victory over a superior enemy. It is thus not entirely true that the viri fortes mentioned in the Chronicle of Fredegar were only “remembered otherwise than through valiant exploits”,201 nor that “heroism is as rare with him as with Gregory”.202 The beginning of Merovingian heroic stories thus is not to be dated back to the early eighth but to the mid-seventh century, at the latest.203 2.3. Portraying Military Men Although W.A. Goffart’s suggestion that the occurrence of the earliest heroic stories date from as late as the eighth century can be refuted, 198 Theudericus natione Macedonum […] Avar nomen Xerxer utelissimus […] singulare certamen cum Avari bellum inivit. Quem, contho in brachio percusso, diutissime in invicem cum aequis girantis, a Theuderico Avar superatus eut. Quem vinctum Theudericus secum ducit ad castra. Quem cum cognovisset fortissimum esso in bellum, verbis blandiciis eum suadebat, ut suo sacramento fidem Theuderico promitterit, et eum postea multis muneribus Theudericus ditarit’. Fred. 2.57, 78, p. 80. 199 Cum in exercito Winidi contra Chunus fuissent adgressi, Samo negucians, quo memoravi superius, cum ipsos in exercito perrexit; ibique tanta ei fuit utilitas de Chunis facta, ut mirum fuisset, et nimia multitudo ex eis gladio Winidorum trucidata fuisset. Winidi cernentes utilitatem Samones, eum super se eligunt regem, ubi 30 et 5 annos regnavit feliciter. Fred. 4.48, pp. 144–5. 200 Tunc Chaubedo, filius Berthario, cernens patrem in pericolum mortis, curso velucissemo patri auxiliandum perrexit. Manaulfo conto percusso in pectore terra prostravit; citris qui patri percusserant totusque interfecit. Sic Bertharium suum genetorem, ut fedelis filius, prestante Domini, liberabit a morte. Fred. 4.90, p. 167. 201 Goffart (1995), 48. 202 Ibid., 47. 203 Cf. Ibid., 51. See also the eldest Life of Arnulf of Metz, possibly composed shortly after his death, which does not only compare its protagonist to the world of war, but even lauds him for his martial skills, see Nam virtutem belligerandi seu potentiam illius

118

chapter four

a substantial majority of the sources written in Gaul dating between the fifth and seventh centuries and including statements on military men contain no explicit heroic connotation. This can be largely explained by the fact that, as suggested above, almost every written source that is still extant was composed by an active member of the Church. Consequently, these writings were above all characterised by a point-of-view that was localised outside the world to which those who fought belonged. This situation is, in fact, an ideal setting for the formation of stereotypes. Most of the statements made in reference to military men were indeed charac­ terised by features that are stereotypical. Either military men were depicted in a particularly positive way or, more frequently, in a particu­ larly negative way. As already alluded to above, the decisive aim of the majority of known authors was not to give an accurate report of past events and personalities but, for example, to argue in favour of a specific body of interests or to transmit a specific message. Sometimes only details and often entire portraits were modelled according to these purposes. How strongly the specific purpose of a text or the (political) position of its author could influence the ways the world of war and those who fought were characterised and dealt with should first be illustrated using the example of two prominent characters mentioned in the Passion of Leudegar of Autun: the Neustrian major of the palace Ebroin and the patricius of Marseille called Hector. As P. Fouracre and R.A. Gerberding show, the negative depiction of Ebroin as “the devil’s instrument” primarly aimed to explain “how Leudegar came to be drawn into politics” and “to show that Leudegar’s involvement was forced upon him and that he had to engage in political struggle in order to combat evil”.204 Consequently, the characteristics that were associated with Ebroin were greed, venality, vengefulness, blood­ thirstiness,205 arrogance, thirst for power,206 tyranny,207 and ruthless deinceps in armis quis enarare queat, praesertim cum saepe phalangas adversum gencium suo adigisset mucrone? Vit. Arn. 4, p. 433. Cf. Vit. Land. 14; Prinz (1973), 31–2. For the date of composition of the Vita Arnulfi, see Wattenbach (1904), 144. 204 Fouracre/Gerberding (1996), 201. 205 Erat enim memoratus Ebroinus ita cupiditatis face succensus et in ambitionem pecuniae deditus, ut illi coram eo iustam causam tantum haberent, qui plus pecuniam detulissent. […] verum etiam pro leve offensa sanguinem nobilium multorum fundebat innoxium. Pass. Leud. 4, pp. 286–7. 206 […] superbia spiritu tumidus eos noluit deinde convocare. Ideo magis coeperunt metuere, eo quod regem, quem ad gloriam patriae publicae debuerat sublimare, dum post se eum retineret pro nomine, cui malum cupierat audenter valeret inferre. Pass. Leud. 5, p. 287. 207 Pass. Leud. 6, 18.



perceiving the world of war119

calculation.208 In contrast, Hector, who was a close affiliate of the Life’s protagonist Leudegar,209 was represented as a saint-like man. When both men realised that their king had decided to execute them, Hector began to hate the ruler, but not, as the author of the Life explicitly states, “because he himself was frightened to die but rather because he was thinking of the safety of those who had come to him for protection.” Therefore, he took flight because, according to the same author, he pre­ ferred not to put the church of Autun on the spot during the holy celebra­ tion of Easter. In order to make sure that no one would blame Hector for cowardice, the anonymous author added the following question: “But is there no one who supposes that he would not have dared to go through all to martyrdom?” Furthermore, he insisted that Hector had previously gone to the king’s palace to offer his life, when he had been “divinely saved” by the advice of some of the king’s men. Hector was ultimately killed by a crowd after he had defended himself like a man. Nevertheless, he obtained “from God pardon for those souls who along with him innocently wished to fend off the storm of persecution”.210 That neither of these descriptions were compulsive can be illustrated by means of the Passio Praeiecti. In opposition to the author of the Passion of Leudegar of Autun, Hector is characterised here as a “man of ill repute” who seized the daughter of a certain Claudia and forced her into concubinage,211 whereas his death 208 Pass. Leud. 16–18. The majority of the sources mentioning Ebroin convey a compa­ rably negative picture on him, see Fischer (1954), 174. 209 Pass. Leud. 9. 210 Igitur vir Domini Leodegarius cernens apud eius animum esse defixum, quod, suadentibus satellitibus eum una cum Hectore, sicut decreverat, redderet interfectum, aut Hector in angustia, sicut timebant, contra regem subiret contemptum, non de sua veritus morte, sed de illorum, qui ad eum causa tuitionis advenerant, pertractans salutem, elegit potius interim latere per fugam, quam occasionem praeberet, ut per eius martyrium in resurrectionis Christi sollemnia cruentaretur vel diriperetur ecclesia, ut ne hi qui ad eum converterant inconsulte amitterent vitam suam. Nec enim quis eum aestimet formidasse adeo usque martyrium? […] Domini crastino regis adiit palatium, et ultro se ingerens, in eo die sanguinem offerre voluit Christo […]. Nam et rex eadem die ipsum propria manu percutere voluit, sed ob diei reverentiam optimatum quorundam sapientia consilium prohibitus fuit. Indubitanter credendum ad hoc eum devenitus tunc fuisse servatum, […]. Cum igitur ab his, qui occasionis huius expectabant eventum, persequutio velox fuisset commota post eum, praedictus ibidem est interfectus; et quia viriliter se fuerat defensare conatus, permittente Domino, a multitudine fuit oppressus cum aliquis, qui comitabantur cum eo. Nec enim inpossibile creditur sancti martyris meritis posse apud Deum illis animabus veniam optinere, qui cum eodem innocenter persequutionis  procella voluerant declinare. Pass. Leud. 11, pp. 293–4. Transl. P. Fouracre and R.A. Gerberding (1996), 228–9. Cf. also ibid. 203–5. 211 His ita transactis, erat quidam infamis vir Hector nomine, qui aput Massiliam patriciatus honore adeptus fuerat. Qui filiam suprascripte Claudie raptam ex scelere sibi sociaverat, et deinceps concubinarum miseria adorsus. Pass. Praei. 23, p. 239. Transl. P. Fouracre and R.A. Gerberding (1996), 288.

120

chapter four

was here reportedly the result of a royal edict.212 The maior domus Ebroin, in contrast to the first Life, is reported to have been a strenuous man – at least in earlier days, although he was “too cruel in his killing of priests”.213 A more positive depiction of the latter can be found, nevertheless, in details such as when the Life of Eligius recounts how the maior domus feared for the life of his sick son Bobo,214 or when the Liber Historiae Francorum called him ingenious,215 although without hiding that he increasingly oppressed the Franks.216 Comparably controversial and contradictory, and more or less inde­ pendent, characterisations of military men are rare in the sources. Most historic personalities were either known by only a single source or by se­veral sources that were directly dependent on a first and earliest testi­ mony. The above comparison suggests that a majority of military men were not depicted in an objective way, i.e. free of bias. It is thus crucial to remain critical of the statements made by contemporary authors. On the other hand, the differentiations willingly made in the sources by contrast­ ing the ‘good’ with the ‘bad’ warrior/soldier217 bear the advantage that it is comparatively easy to define which qualities were esteemed most by contemporaries – or at least the respective author, depending on the type of source – and which were most discredited. The personality best known through the sources characterised by his military function is the emperor or king. Classical Roman virtues like clementia, pietas, or iustitia218 did not retain the same significance to char­ acterise a ruler, even though they did turn up sporadically in Merovingian 212 Hector vero captus, ex regalibus edictis peremptus est. Pass. Praei. 26, p. 241. 213 […] ac non post multum ab Ebroino comite palatii, alias strenuum virum, sed in nece sacerdotum nimis ferocem. Pass. Praei. 26, p. 241. Transl. P. Fouracre and R.A. Gerberding (1996), 291. The word strenuus has a consistently positive connotation in Merovingian sources, see ibid. 291, n. 120. 214 Dado, Elig. 2.56. 215 At ille, ingeniosus ut erat, intellexit. LHF 45, p. 319. 216 Ebroinus itaque magis ac magis Francos crudeliter oppremebat. LHF 47, p. 320. Cf. Fischer (1954), 174, and the assessment on Ebroin in ibid. 177–83. 217 In rare cases like the one of Guntramn Boso known by Gregory of Tours, the sources contain more complex personalities including both positive and negative characteristics. See, for example Gunthchramnus vero alias sane bonus – nam in periuriis nimum praeparatus erat. Greg., Hist. 5.14, p. 211. See also Boso supported by St Martin against the aggressor Dracolen, ibid. 5.25; similar Greg., Virt. 2.17. Cf. Fuit autem hic in actu levis, avariciae inhians, rerum alienarum ultra modum cupidus, omnibus iurans et nulli promissa adimplens. […] Ariolus ac sortis saepius utebatur, ex quibus futura cognoscere cupiens, remansit inlusus. Greg., Hist. 9.10, p. 426. 218 See, for example mihi senatum populumque Romanum dare virtutis clementiaque iustitiae et pietatis caussa testatum est per eius clupei inscriptionem. Aug., Res 34, p. 38.



perceiving the world of war121

sources. Gregory of Tours, for example, associated Sigibert I with the virtue clementia,219 whereas Fortunatus praised him for his piety.220 Another quality that was occasionally mentioned is sapientia, a term attributed to Chlothar II221 and prominent in an letter of advice addressed either to Clovis II or Sigibert III.222 The qualification that remained impor­ tant throughout the Merovingian age in referring to a ruler is iustitia, his vouching for justice. Sidonius Apollinaris, for example, opined that the emperor Avitus was a ‘guardian of the laws’ even before his election and excelled for qualities beyond his success in battle,223 whereas Venantius Fortunatus praised king Chilperic I for his efforts to enforce law.224 How­ ever, and unsurprisingly in light of the increased proportion of Christian authors since the fourth century, becoming virtually exclusive from the later fifth century onwards, Christian ideals concurrently became most crucial when evaluating contemporary monarchs.225 Qualifications deciding whether a ruler was evaluated positively or negatively were his faith and his relationship to and support of the Church.226 Salvian of 219 […] postea, ut erat clemens, muneribus ditatum patri reddidit sanum. Greg., Hist. 4.23, p. 156. Cf. also Epist. Aus. 9, 25, 26, 40; Fort., Med. 37; Desid., Epist. 2.9; Form. Marc. 1.8, 33, 34. 220 […] iustitiæ cultor, pietatis amore coruscas:/ quod te plus habeat, certat utrumque bonum. Fort., Carm. 6.1a, ll. 21–2, p. 130. See also, on Charibert Trajani ingenium de pietate refers. Fort., Carm. 6.2, l. 82, p. 133. Beyond this see, for example Epist. Aus. 9, 26, Desid., Epist. 1.3. On prudentia, another Roman virtue see, for example the description found in Fredegar: Sigybertus a Chunis circumdatur, sed suae prudenciae donis offerens liberator. Fred. 3.61, p. 109. 221 Chlothar II is characterised as sollers in amore sapientiae. Jon., Col. 1.24, p. 98. 222 See for example Rex enim Davis sapiens humilisque, iugiter opera bona sectando, quae Domino erant placita, proelia, quae fuerant contra illum parata, semper vicit, templum Domini ipse aedificare coepit, and: [Salomon] rectus fuit in iudicio, sapiens in eloquio, omnesque motus suos totos regales habuit. Epist. Coll. 15, p. 457. 223 […] iura igitur rexit; namque hoc quoque par fuit, ut tum/assertor fieret legum qui nunc erit auctor,/ne dandus populis princeps, caput, induperator,/ Caesar et Augustus solum fera proelia nosset. Sid., Carm. 7, ll. 312–15, p. 211. Cf. Born (1934), 23. 224 […] inter utrumque sagax, armis et iure probatus/ belliger hinc radias, legifer inde micas […] legibus arma regis et leges dirigis armis:/ artis diversae sic simul itur iter. Fort, Carm. 9 1, ll. 101–2, ll. 111–12, p. 204. Cf. George (1989), 16. Childebert III is still described by the Liber Historiae Francorum as bonae memoriae gloriosus domnus Childebertus rex iustus. LHF 50, p. 324. 225 Cf. Graus (1965), 351. 226 See, for example, Fredegar on king Guntramn Guntramnus fuit rex bonus, timens Deum. Fred. 3.56, p. 108. Similar: Fred. 4.praef. Cf. also Greg., Hist. 4.25 and Greg., Mart. 75. M. Banniard (1978) underlines that “Gontran fait figure de nouveau Clovis pour le Tourangeau, au moment où il écrit le livre II des H. L.” (p. 35). Cf. also Reydellet (1981), 420–29. According to the same (ibid., 429–35), Guntramn represented in the works of Gregory of Tours, besides Clovis, the ideal king. Furthermore, he ascertained more generally that the adjective attributed most frequently to the Merovingian kings is pius.

122

chapter four

Marseilles, for example, praised the Gothic king for his ardent devotion to God expressed before battle by intense prayers, and contrasted him to the – according to him – common Roman expectation that victory lay in their own hands, not in the hand of God.227 Comparably, Cyprian com­ mended one century later King Childebert I for his religious virtues and benevolence toward the Church.228 The effect of this criterion on a positive evaluation of a king is most striking in the contemporary portraits of Clovis. It already appears in the letter of congratulation addressed to him by Avitus of Vienne that mingles – possibly aiming to meet the recipient’s tastes – the portrait of a victorious warlord with one of a Christian king. The bishop imagined the king’s baptism in the following manner: […] when a large company of bishops united, striving in the sacred service, would lap the royal limbs in the life-giving waters, when he would bow before the servants of the horde the heard that should be so feared by pagans, when locks grown long beneath a helmet, would put on the helmet of the sacred chrism, when his spotless limbs, the breastplate removed, when shine as white as his baptismal clothes. Have no fear, O most prosper­ ous of Kings! From now on the very softness of that clothing will cause the hardness of your armour to be all the more effective: whatever good luck has offered you in the past, holiness will now provide.229 Other attributes are serenus, placidus, felix, bonus, celsus, egregius, excellens, inclitus, mitis. He underlines, however, that “Il est évident que l’on se trouve là devant des épithètes con­ ventionnelles, sans aucune valeur descriptive.” (pp. 331–2). See also Wallace-Hadrill (1968), 35–6; Wehrli (1982), 21; Graus (1965), 351. Cf. Greg., Hist. 3.25, on King Theudebert I. 227 […] illi crediderunt in manu dei esse victoriam, nos in manu atque nostra, immo in sacrilega atque impia, quod est peius nocentiusque quam nostra. Denique ipse rex hostium, quantum res prodidit ac probavit, usque ad diem pugnae stratus cilicio preces fudit, ante bellum in oratione iacuit, ad bellum de oratione surrexit. Priusquam pugnam manu capesseret, supplicatione puguavit, et ideo fidens processit ad pugnam, quia iam meruerat in oratione victoriam. Salv., Gub. VII 10.44, p. 91. Similar, in regards, to the Roman emperor Theodosius, see Greg. Hist. 1.42–3. 228 […] gloriosissimi Childeberti catholicissimum in Christi nomine regnum cum virtute mansuetum, cum severitate commune, cum humilitate conspicuum, sacerdotes Domini non terrore concutiens, sed veneratione constringens, in Galliis eminentius omnibus, in ecclesiis cunctis aequali privilegio cum celsitudine civilitatem humanitus recognoscens. Cyp., Caes. 2.45, p. 499. 229 […] cum adunatorum numerosa pontificum manus sancti ambitione servitii membra regia undis vitalibus confoveret, cum se servis dei inflecteret timendum gentibus caput: cum sub casside crinis nutritus salutarem galeam sacrae unctionis indueret: cum intermisso tegemine loricam immaculati artus simili vestium candore fulgerent. Faciet, sicut creditis, regem florentissime, faciet inquam indumentorum ista mollities, ut vobis deinceps plus valeat rigor armorum; et quicquid felicitas usque hic praestiterat, addet hic sanctitas. Avit., Epist. 46, pp. 75–6. Transl. D. Shanzer and I.N. Wood (2002), 371–2. Cf. the later Vit. Chroth. 7. See also Avit., Epist. 45, to Sigismund.



perceiving the world of war123

The picture left here is comparable to the one provided almost a century later by Gregory of Tours. He equally emphasised that a ruler who sup­ ported the Church230 could rely on the help of God as when, for example, the author attributed the words “[i]t is no good expecting to win this fight if we offend Saint Martin”231 to his king.232 The Merovingian idea of a good Christian ruler also implied qualities like chastity233 or the love of peace.234 It has been shown above that rulers were at least occasionally praised for skills related to their function as a military commander. The rex armis235 Chilperic I, for example, was commended personally by Fortu­ natus for his fame, fidelity, energy, and strength, and was called the inspiration and support of his people.236 According to his poet, the king distinguished himself from others by his persistent fighting of battles and his training in the art of war.237 In the course of the seventh century, the Christian concepts were increasingly accompanied by warlike qualities. King Dagobert I, for example, was described in the Life of Audoin of Rouen as follows: […] a man clever to the limit, crafty in his slyness, and fearsome in his authority […]. And he, holding the royal sceptre as a raging lion oppressing 230 See, for example, Clovis’s letters to the bishops of Gaul, Capit. 1. 231 Et ubi erit spes victuriae, si beato Martino offendimus? Greg., Hist. 2.37, p. 85 Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 152. Similar Cumque secundum consuetudine Gothi terga vertissent, ipse rex Chlodovechus victuriam, Domino adiuvante, obtinuit. Ibid., p. 87. 232 For more detailed studies on Gregory’s portrait of Clovis, see Wynn (2001), 1–35; Reydellet (1981), 402–9. Cf. Muhlberger (1998), 90; Wallace-Hadrill (1968), 33; Graus (1965), 393. On the various pictures given by the Merovingian hagiography on Clovis, see Heinzelmann (1996), 87–112. 233 See, for example, on king Sigibert I, Fort., Carm. 6.1, ll. 25–35. 234 For example, Fredegar lauds Clovis for his cunning overtaking of Chloderic’s reign, as this was done without any fighting. Fred. 3.25. Cf. Graus (1965), 348–9. 235 Fort., Carm. 9.1, l. 5. 236 […] auxillum patriae, spes et tutamen in armis,/ fida tuis virtus, inclitus atque vigor,/ Chilperice potens. Fort., Carm. 9.1, ll. 25–7, pp. 201–2. See also consuluit domui, patriae populoque creator,/ quem gentes metuunt, te superesse virum./ ne ruat armatus per Gallica rura rebellis,/ nomine victoris hic es et ampla tegis:/ quem Geta, Vasco tremunt, Danus, Euthio, Saxo, Britannus,/ cum patre quos acie te domitasse patet./ terror [es] extremis Fresonibus atque Suebis,/ qui neque bella parant, sed tua frena rogant./ omnibus his datus es timor illo iudice campo,/ et terrore novo factus es altus amor. Ibid. 9.1, ll. 69–78, p. 203, and Cui simul arma favent et littera constat amore:/ hinc virtute potens, doctus et inde places./ inter utrumque sagax, armis et iure probatus/ belliger hinc radias, legifer inde micas. Ibid. 9.1, ll. 99–102, p. 204. See also J. George (1989) underlining that “[t]his ideal to some extent derives its virtues from traditional Roman qualities but at the same time strongly echoes themes of Gallic ecclesiastical writing and preaching in the fifth and sixth centuries” (p. 8). 237 […] altior adsiduis crescis, non frangeris armis,/ et belli artificem te labor ipse facit./ fortior efficeris per multa pericula princeps. Fort., Carm. 9.1, ll. 63–5, p. 203.

124

chapter four the necks of his servants, bravely triumphed by containing the ferocity of [foreign] peoples.238

The author virtually restricted this description to qualities that were in one way or another related to the king’s function as a war-leader.239 This included his strength, as suggested by the comparison to a raging lion, the fear the ruler induced in his enemies and those in his authority, and his cleverness – an essential capacity to be able to attain victory. The Chronicle of Fredegar provided a significantly altered picture of Clovis I – compared to the one given by Avitus of Vienne or Gregory of Tours – and compared the king to a lion. It further emphasised his martial qualities by calling him an outstanding warrior and the strongest of all kings.240 Furthermore, the kings were gradually valued for their braveness (Lat. fortitudine) and their ability to use fear to control their subjects.241 Where a ruler was depicted in a negative way it was, in most cases, done in a consequent antithesis to its positive paradigm. When the author of the Chronicle of Fredegar, for example, described how Dagobert I sig­ nificantly changed in the course of his life from good to bad, he did this by stating that he turned his interests from justice, an element that he had loved dearly until then, to start lusting for Church property. The author explicitly expressed his regrets for the king’s change of attitude as, never­ theless, he generously distributed alms to the poor.242 Comparably, the Liber Historiae Francorum attests to the negative character of Clovis II by pointing out that he did not pay due respect to the Church, and that his interests were restricted to food, drink, and women.243 The best known 238 […] homo versutus admodum et ingenio callidus seu tremebundus in regno. Qui licet sceptra regalia tenens, ut leo fervidus subditorum colla deprimens, gentium feritate vallante fortitudine triumphavit. Vit. Aud. 2, p. 555. Transl. P. Fouracre and R.A. Gerberding (1996), 154. 239 The qualities mentioned above, i.e. a king’s justice, love for peace, and support of the Church, nevertheless remain important until the eighth century, see for example the depiction of the same king Dagobert I in the Liber Historiae Francorum, LHF 42. As seen, martial elements were neither completely absent from fifth nor sixth century laudations on contemporary rulers. 240 Haec fuit magnus et pugnator egregius, ad instar leoni fortissimus cyteris regibus. Fred. 3.12, p. 97. Cf. Nascitur nobis filius fortitudinem leonis signum et instar tenens, ibid. On the warlike depiction of Clovis in Merovingian hagiography, see Heinzelmann (1996), 93. 241 Fred. 3.12. See also ibid. 3.16; Vit. Chroth. 4. 242 […] cum omnem iustitiam quem prius dilixerat fuisset oblitus, cupiditates instincto super rebus ecclesiarum et leudibus sagace desiderio vellit omnibus undique expoliis novos implere thinsauros, luxoriam super modum deditus, tres habebat maxime ad instar reginas et pluremas concupinas. […] utinam illi ad mercedem veram lucre fuisset, nam aelymosinam pauperibus super modum largiter aerogabat. Fred. 4.60, pp. 150–1. 243 Eo tempore Chlodoveus brachium beati Dionisii adscidit, instigante diabulo. […] Fuit autem ipse Chlodoveus omne spuricia deditus, fornicarius et inlusor feminarum, gulae et



perceiving the world of war125

negative depiction of a Merovingian king is the one Gregory of Tours drew of Chilperic I. Here again the main, although not exclusive, reproach made of the king now called the new Nero and Herod is his bad treatment of the Church.244 It is significant, however, that in opposition to the posi­ tive portraits, elements related to the waging of war did not appear as part of a negative depiction of a ruler.245 This again confirms how far the descriptions given by the sources reflect a Christian point-of-view, and not a secular or even military perception, which would certainly have included lacking skills in the art of war or disadvantageous characteristics like cowardice to complete a negative portrait. The portraits found in the sources regarding non-royal military men were more or less reflections of the pictures drawn of contemporary rulers. This includes absence of references to lacking military skills in a negative depiction, which were likewise only mentioned in connection with positive portraits. Christian and martial qualities were, for example, praised in Ecdicius, who was simultaneously lauded for having saved four thousand men from starvation and for his skill in battle, which led to the defeat of a superior number of Goths.246 Comparably, Count Litorius was complimented by Prosper for saving Narbonne from attacking Goths and starvation by filling the city’s granaries.247 The patricius Mummolus whom, according to Gregory, God assisted against the Lombards by ma­king an animal show him a crossing over the river Isère reportedly ter­ rified his enemies with his prowess.248 Most military men, however, were depicted in a positive way by draw­ ing a portrait that more exclusively included Christian virtues. The description Constantius of Lyons provided of Germanus of Auxerre was certainly the closest a dux could get to the ideal saint,249 but men like the ebrietate contentus. LHF 44, p. 316. Significantly enough, Gregory underlined in regards to Chlothar I, described in a positive manner, that although he had intercourse with Theudebald’s widow Vuldetrada, he stopped doing so after the bishops’ complaints. Greg., Hist. 4.9. See also ibid. 4.13, 4.26; Greg., Patr. 17.2. 244 […] Chilpericus, Nero nostri temporis et Herodis […] nullum plus odio eclesias habens. Greg., Hist. 6.46, pp. 319–20. G. Halsall (2002) argued that this consistently negative depic­ tion of the king is only present from this chapter of Gregory’s work onwards. See also the survey on Gregory’s depiction of Chilperic in Wallace-Hadrill (1968), 35. 245 Cf. Wallace-Hadrill (1968), 33. 246 Fuerunt plus quam 4 milia, quos aluit usque tempore ubertatis. […] Aedici us mirae velocitatis fuit; pluris vicibus multitudinem Gothorum cum paucis in fugam convertit. Fred. 3.14, p. 98. Similar: Greg., Hist. 2.24. 247 Prosp., Chron. a. 436. Cf. Sid., Epist. VI 12.9. 248 Exterriti enim virtute Mummoli. Greg., Hist. 4.44, p. 180. See also the portraits on Aëtius, in ibid. 2.8; Fred. 3.1. 249 Const., Germ. 1–2. As already indicated in a previous note, Germanus reportedly kept on wearing his military cape after his ordination as a bishop, ibid. 4, 43.

126

chapter four

maior domus Erchinoald were also associated to a full scale of Christian virtues. He was described as patient, kind, considerate, humble, peace­ able, wise, and benevolent toward the clergy; he reportedly had control over himself and was friendly in his answers, while he lacked pride or greediness.250 The maintenance of peace was also a main criteria for the positive judgement of the young dux Nicetius.251 Chrodinus, according to Gregory, was of great piety, gave alms, and supported the Church. He was also active in the cultivation of land and the erection of buildings.252 The Chronicle of Fredegar added that he was full of kindliness, and just.253 According to this chronicle, Chrodinus had been chosen as new maior domus because of his strenuousness, piety and patience,254 whereas Grimoald, who was described by the Liber Historiae Francorum as pious, modest and just,255 had been chosen according to the later Continuationes for this office because of his consideration, benevolence, clemency, char­ ity, and outstanding prayers.256 That these virtues were not only expected from members of the elite but also from any other military man is at least suggested by Caesarius of Arles exhorting soldiers to refrain from immoral intercourse.257 Lack of Christian virtues was always a significant criterion for critique. Orientius blamed the potentates of his time for focussing too much on earthly pleasures,258 while Sulpicius Severus blamed a comes called 250 Eratque homo paciens, bonetate plenus, cum esset paciens et cautus, humiletatem et benignam voluntatem circa sacerdotibus omnebusque pacienter et benigne respondens nullamque tumens superbiam, neque cupeditatem saeviaebat; tanta in suo tempore pacem sectans fuit, ut Deum esset placebelem. Erat sapiens, sed in primum maxeme cum simplecetate, rebus minsuratem ditatus, ab omnibus erat dilectus. Fred. 4.84, p. 163. 251 Nicetius […] vir valde aetate iuvenis, sed actus in sensu, fecitque pacem in regionem Arverna vel in reliqua ordinationis suae loca. Greg., Hist. 8.18, p. 385. 252 Eo anno Chrodinus obiit, vir magnifice bonitatis et pietatis, aelimosinarius valde pauperumque refector, profluus ditatur eclesiarum, clericorum nutritur. Nam sepe a novo fundans villas, ponens vinias, aedificans domus, culturas eregens. Greg., Hist. 6.20, pp. 288–9. 253 Eo anno Rodinus dux moritur, verum aelimosinarius et bonitate plenissimus, iustus in cunctis, piissemus in pauperibus. Fred. 3.88, p. 117. See also the portrait provided of the maior domus Aega, Fred. 4.80. 254 […] omnes Austrasii cum elegerint Chrodinum maiorem domus, eo quod esset in cunctis strenuus et timens Deum, paciencia. Fred. 3.58, p. 109. 255 Eratque ipse Grimoaldus maiorem domus pius, modestus, masuetus et iustus. LHF 50, p. 324. 256 Grimoaldus […] fuitque vir mitissimus, omni bonitate et mansuetudine repletus, largus in elemosinis et in orationibus promptus. Cont. 6, p. 172. 257 Caes., Serm. 43.7. Chastity is equally commended in regards to the count Gregory of Autun, along iustitia. Greg., Patr. 7.1. 258 Illic imperio quodam regnoque potentes,/ illic conspicui fascibus et trabeis,/ quis aurum lectis dapibus, crystalla Falerno,/ substratosque ostro mos onerare toros:/ robore famosi, laudati munere formae,/ ac male fidentes corporeis opibus:/ quorum uenter erat



perceiving the world of war127

Avitianus for his barbarous and cruel ferocity259 before he had come to his senses after St Martin had insistently exhorted him to do so.260 The same is true in regard to Theuderic I’s confidant Sigivald, who reportedly unjustly confiscated properties, including the one Bishop Tetradius of Bourges had previously donated to the church of St Julian.261 A certain Fla­vadus was characterised as cruel for having killed the Christian patrician Willibad.262 The depiction of non-imperial/royal military men, however, is not as con­ sistent as the one provided of their rulers. Although the Arver­nian dux Victorius had erected and rebuilt several chapels and churches, he was nevertheless blamed for his loose life and irregular affairs.263 An interesting source for an assessment of the late antique idea of the good and the bad non-imperial/royal military is the portrait of the provincial official Seronatus264 drawn by Sidonius Apollinaris. It is a rare portrait in which Christian ideas are almost absent. Seronatus was appa­ rently represented in some kind of antithesis to his addressee Ecdicius already previously mentioned. Sidonius emphasised their oppositeness by complaining that Clermont was simultaneously suffering from the latter’s absence and Seronatus’ presence, described as follows: This very Catiline of our age […] is openly malignant and basely deceitful; he swaggers like a slave and gives his orders like a master; exacts like a des­ pot, condemns like a judge, accuses falsely like a barbarian; all day long he goes armed through fear and he goes hungry’ through avarice; his greed makes him terrible, his presumption makes him cruel; he is ceaselessly busy either in punishing thefts or in committing them; in public and amidst the laughter of those he has assembled he belches forth talk of fighting amongst peaceful citizens and of letters amongst barbarians: as for his written instructions, not having had a real schooling even in his ABC, he dictates them in public through boastfulness and corrects them through dominus, lasciuia uotum,/ spes in praesenti, gloria diuitiae:/ qui negexerunt miseri uel morte sub ipsa/ claudendis dominum quaerere luminibus,/ poenam expectabunt clausi. ne quaere doceri/ quam poenam: factis congrua poena manet. Orient. 2, ll. 263–74, pp. 237–8. 259 Auitianu quondam comitis noueratis barbaram nimis et ultra omnia cruentam feritatem. Sulp., Dial. III 4.1, p. 201. 260 Sulp., Dial. III 4.1–7. 261 Ubi dum multorum res iniuste conpeteret, villam quandam, quam gloriosae memoraie Tetradius episcopus Biturigensis basilicae sancti Iuliani reliquerat, sub specie obumbratae commutationis avidus pervadit. Greg., Jul. 14, p. 570. 262 Flavadi crudelissimi […] cum praefatus tyrannus Willibadum christianissimum virum, Burgundiae patricium, innoxie interfecisset. Dado, Elig. 2.28, p. 715. See also Greg., Hist. 2.3, 4.24; Pass. Leud. 18; Cont. 2. 263 Greg., Hist. 2.20. 264 He was possibly a vicarious provinciarum, cf. Heinzelmann (1982), 692; Stroheker (1948), 215, nr. 352.

128

chapter four sheer effrontery. Everything that he lusts to possess he makes a pretence of purchasing; he is too arrogant to pay the price and too diffident to agree to a contract of sale. In the Common Council he gives orders, among his coun­ sellors he is mute; in the church he jests, at the banquet he preaches; in his chamber he convicts, in the court he dozes; each day he crowds the woods with fugitives, the farms with barbarian occupants, the altars with accused persons, the prisons with priests; he brags to the Goths and insults the Romans, mocks the magistrates and plays tricks along with the public cashiers; he tramples on the laws of Theodosius and issues laws of Theodoric, searching out ancient offences and brand-new taxes.265

Sidonius’ pointing to cowardice, alluding that Seronatus had always been armed out of fear, represents the only example of a disadvantageous war­ like quality included in a negative portrait of a military man. This seems to confirm that comparable suggestions were part of a secular/military critique. The main reproaches issued in Seronatus’ regard, however, were falseness, conceitedness, self-overestimation, arrogance,266 and ostenta­ tion, together with injustice, inappropriate and mistimed behaviour, and lack of instruction from or respect toward the clergy, as well as his friendship with the Goths. These were all qualities that contrasted with Roman values like clementia, pietas, iustitia, sapientia or eloquentia.267 Comparable values did appear in positive depictions, as in the epigraph on Orientius, a confidant of an unnamed Merovingian king, characterised as a wise, just, moderate, honest, and loved man.268 265 […] iste Catilina saeculi nostri […] aperte invidet, abiecte fingit, serviliter superbit; indicit ut dominus, exigit ut tyrannus, addicit ut iudex, calumniatur ut barbarus; toto die a metu armatus, ab avaritia ieiunus, a cupiditate terribilis, a vanitate crudelis, non cessat simul furta vel punire vel facere; palam et ridentibus convocatis ructat inter cives pugnas, inter barbaros litteras; epistulas, ne primis quidem apicibus sufficienter initiatus, publice a iactantia dictat, ab impudentia emendat; totum quod concupiscit quasi comparat nec dat pretia contemnens nec accipit instrumenta desperans; in conci!io iubet in consilio tacet, in ecciesia iocatur in convivio praedicat, in cubiculo damnat in quaestione dormitat; implet cotidie silvas fugientibus villas hostibus, altaria reis carceres clericis; exultans Gothis insultansque Romanis, inludens praefectis conludensque numerarii, leges Theodosianas calcans Theodoricianasque proponens veteres culpas, nova tributa perquirit. Sid., Epist. II 1.1–3, pp. 21–2. Transl. W.B. Anderson (1963), 415–17. See also the description of the same in Epist. V 13, where he is called a ‘monster’, and Epist. VII 7.2. Cf. the comparable portrait of Gnatho, Sid., Epist. III 13. 266 The blame of arrogance can also be found in the Chronicle of Fredegar in regard to Guntramn Boso’s opponent Dracolen. Dracolenus, ut erat elatus. Fred. 3.80, p. 114. Cf. Gregory’s portrait At ille, ut erat vanus ac levis. Greg. 5.25, p. 231. 267 The importance of eloquence and education for the antique and early medieval Roman elite has been mentioned above in reference to Epist. Aus. 17 and Fort., Carm. 7.7, ll. 25–8. See also Sid., Epist. IV 17.3. 268 […] vir sapiens iustus moderatus honestus amatus. Fred., Carm. 4.24, l. 9, p. 94. Cf. on Chagneric of Meaux, a noble from the table of king Theudebert Quo cum quidam vir



perceiving the world of war129

The preceding survey could show to what extent the different portraits provided by the sources were actually influenced by the nature of the text and their author’s identity and specific aim. For an ecclesiastical author, a person’s relation to the Church appeared to be the deciding factor whether he was pictured in a positive or negative manner, and a means of casting a positive light even on a rather unappealing person. A secular author, on the other hand, apparently preferred to adhere to the classical Roman values when drawing a favourable portrait. The result was that neither the positive nor the negative depictions provide an accurate view of a living person, which was never the primary aim of contempo­ rary authors. They primarily represented common stereotypes269 used to meet their specific intentions. Although these portraits certainly included reality – as stereotypes always do – they provide a very one-sided and limited picture of the people they actually referred to.270 2.4. Summary The primary aim of late Roman and early medieval authors was not to give a sincere picture of reality or of contemporaries. Historians know that first level information was rarely the aim of any writing. This reality was generally subordinated to the intention of a text and its creator. Military men, for example, often appear as a figure that was seemingly designed first and foremost to serve as a negative example, to be con­ trasted with a man of the Church. The personalities depicted in these writings thus mainly appeared as stereotypes, even if they could be fairly heterogeneous. This does not mean that the portraits contemporary authors provided had nothing in common with the world or with the individuals they pretended to depict. These characterisations rather represent contemporary interpretations of a reality that was primarily subordinated to a specific purpose, whereas every portrait and its respec­ tive author’s intentions still reflect the world from which both had emerged. This interpretive character of most information that is provided by the sources must be considered during the remainder of the study. nobilis Chagnericus Theudeberti conviva, vir sapiens et consiliis regis gratus et nobilitatis sapientia vallatus. Jon., Col. 1.26, p. 99. 269 Cf. Reydellet (1981) underlining in regards to Fortunatus’ Panegyric on Childebert II and his mother Brunhild that “[l]e roi n’est plus une personne, mais l’incarnation d’un certain nombre de valeurs.” (p. 332). 270 Cf. W.A. Goffart (2002): “Even with Gregory’s Histories in hand, what we encounter is literature, not real life” (p. 370).

130

chapter four 3. Contemporary Perceptions of Armed Violence

The sources from the fifth to the seventh centuries provide even less reliable information on the actual experiences of warfare. Although war is among the most frequently mentioned subjects, the written testimo­ nies rarely leave more than a vague impression of what it was like to be confronted with military violence, and all it entailed at that time. Reconstructing what warfare may have been like, what it could entail for an individual, and to what extent it could be a dramatic experience is thus not an easy task due to lack of reliable documentation, often limited to scarce mentions of fighting, looting, and devastation. The aim of the following sections is to gather the available information in order to ana­ lyse the significance of warfare, armed violence, and peace in society, in general, and to reconstruct the individual experiences of both those who fought and those who did not. 3.1. Warfare in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages There is virtually no society in history where the lives of those who inhabited it were not strongly characterised by a consistent contact with armed violence. Alongside the modern western European world, a rare exception – if any – might be post-republican society in the central terri­ tories of the Roman Empire.271 As already argued, to the inhabitants of these regions at some distance from the empire’s political boundaries, warfare was a foreign phenomenon that took place almost exclusively outside or at the borders of the known world. According to Ausonius’ late-fourth-century testimony, warfare was still a localised phenomenon at the empire’s northern frontiers,272 which implies that local life was not 271 Cf. J. Rüpke (1995) underlined that “[t]n der Zeit vom Beginn des sogenannten ersten Samnitenkrieges bis zum Ende des ersten Punischen Krieges (327 bis 241 v. Chr.) gab es höchstens vier bis fünf einzelne Jahre ohne Krieg” (p. 213). For a comprehensive survey on the importance of warfare in early medieval society, see Halsall (2003, Warfare), and particularly p. 229. 272 Although Haec profligate venit modo laurea belli:/ hinc alias aliasque feret (ll. 425–6), Ausonius recounted how, on his journey on the Mosel, Addam urbes, tacito quas subterlaberis alveo,/ moeniaque antiquis te prospectantia muris;/ addam praesidiis dubiarum condita rerum,/ sed modo secures non castra, sed horrea Belgis;/ addam felices ripa ex utraque colonos/ teque inter medios hominumque boumque labors/ stringentem ripas et pinguia culta secantem (ll. 454–60). Aus., Mos., pp. 258–60. The poem on Item de castello eisdem super Mosella, written two centuries later by Venantius Fortunatus, first leaves a compara­ bly idyllic image, see cernit frugiferos congaudens incola sulcos/ vota ferens segeti fertilitate gravi (ll. 13–14). However, the castellum, described a little bit further, was a stronghold that



perceiving the world of war131

necessarily threatened by the presence of nearby hosts or ongoing fight­ ing. Moreover, war was only fought by men specifically trained for this purpose, often stationed in camps situated outside civil society and thus intentionally kept at some distance from it.273 Although a large number of Roman citizens might have been enrolled into military service, only a peripheral population was – if at all – directly confronted with armed conflicts and what they entailed.274 As described above, this changed since the late third century and throughout late Antiquity, when the internal unrests and struggles for power275 as well as the external troubles on the borders had reached the point that they could no longer be ignored. Contemporary authors called the result a ruined country.276 When armed conflicts ceased to be geographically restricted, the empire had to extend its military force substantially.277 Although Gaul had previously seen the devastation of its territories, including several major cities,278 the fifth-century situa­ tion was different in that Roman society had never recovered entirely from the breakdown of its frontiers in 407 and the subsequent urban did not only aim at providing potential means of security. It rather seems to have been built to actively protect the local population, see hoc vir apostolicus Nicetius ergo pera­ frans/ condidit optatum pastor ovile gregi;/ turribus incinxit ter denis undique collem,/ […] conplacuit latum muro concludere campum,/ et prope castellum heac casa sola facit./ […] turris ad adverso quae constitit obvia clivo,/ sanctorum locus est, arma tenenda viris./ illic est etiam gemino ballista volatu,/ quae post se mortem linquit et ipsa fugit (ll. 19–21, ll. 27–8, ll. 33–36). Fort., Carm. 2.12, pp. 64–5. See also the idea of a ‘war zone’ implicit in the words in procinctu considering the context of the sentence when Ausonius underlined that the elections to his consulship could be said to have been done ‘in centuries’, see ut quod in procinctu, centuriata dicentur? Aus., Grat. 9, p. 24; cf. the translation by H.G.E. White (1985), 243–5. 273 See the regulations still to be found in the Theodosian Code, CTh. VII 1.12.16, VII 1.12.1. T. Derks and C. Jefferis (1998) likewise underline that “[t]here could be no doubt that, within the boundaries of the empire, the use of force was the absolute monopoly of the Roman army.” (p. 45). See also James (1999), 17. 274 This does not mean that soldiers were basically separated from society, as the army also provided a large number of civil services, see Southern (2007), 77–8. Cf. Demandt (1998), 233. 275 See also Sidonius underlining that the destruction in Clermont around 474 were non minus civica simultate quam barbarica incursion vacuatam. Sid., Epist. III 2.2, p. 40. 276 Pac., Paneg. 11.4. 277 The significantly increased need for potential recruits is best documented by the fact that in the early fifth century even slaves were explicitly requested to enroll, contrary to Roman tradition. CTh. VII 13.16. Cf. ibid. VII 2.1, VII 13.1, VII 13.8, VII 13.11. For an earlier attempt to increase the number of recruits, see ibid. VII 1.10. On the necessity for a military presence to protect the empire against barbarian incursions, see ibid. VII 12.1. See also Demandt (1998), 224–5. 278 See, for example, the barbarian incursions of the times of the caesar and later emperor Julian, see for example Jul., Ath. 279A-B; Sulp., Mart. 4.1.

132

chapter four

destruction.279 As a response to the fading of the safeguard of the Roman army, the local inhabitants had to take increasing care of their own secu­ rity, which led to a new system of locally erected fortifications already alluded to above.280 It has also been shown that several sources testify to the despair following these events, when contemporaries had to watch the strength of the once eternal Rome fade in the face of barbarian hordes.281 Now territories that had previously been mostly spared for cen­ turies were hit, including the fertile lands of Aquitaine282 and its adjacent territories, now threatened by the Visigoths who had been settled there in 418.283 Until the second half of the fifth century, these Goths had expanded their influence and presence up to the Auvergne.284 Although there had certainly been moments of recovery and reconstruction,285 it appears that Gaul was at war during most of the fifth century.286 This situation did not change considerably after the takeover by the Franks.287 In the late fifth and early sixth centuries, Frankish lordship was expanded to take over the former Kingdom of Soissons, and subse­ quently to conquer territories previously controlled by the Goths, the Burgundians,288 the Alamanni,289 the Bretons,290 the Thuringians,291 and 279 See Salv., Gub. VI 8.13, VI 8.15. See also Chron. 452, a. 408. Cf. Favez (1957, 78) under­ lining that Gaul had recovered from the third and fourth-century inroads by the time of the fifth century. On the situation at the Roman frontiers, see also CTh. VII 15.1. See also the assessment made by Knight (2007, 16), referring to the late third century. 280 See Lotter (2003), 31–52. 281 See, for example Hac tempestate praevaletudine Romanorum vires funditus attenuatae. Chron. 452, a. 408.61, p. 652. 282 Cf. Salv., Gub. VII 2. 283 Prosp., Chron. a. 425, a. 436. Cf. ibid. a. 419. 284 Sid., Epist. III 4, VII 1.1–3, VII 5.3. The troubles with non-Roman groups were not restricted to these eastern borders. Litorius, for example, had to fight resurrecting Armoricans before heading against the Goths. Sid., Carm. 7, ll. 246–50. 285 Cf. Rut. 1, ll. 29–30; Paul, Carm. 17, ll. 217–52, 91. Cf. also Favez (1957), 78–9. 286 It is hard to tell in how far there had been a decade of comparable peace between 440 and 450, as explicit evidence in this regard is missing. See also H. Elton (1992), accor­ ding to whom “[y]ear in, year out, Aëtius and his men were at war, and eleven campaigns are recorded between 425 and 439” (p. 170). According to the same, however, the fighting abruptly ceased after 439 and until 450 (ibid.). Cf. Merob., Paneg. 1, frg. IB, ll. 2–9. 287 K.-F. Werner (1988) assumes that it was already “sous Clovis que se préparent cette pacification, mais aussi cette protection de la Gaule devant les peuples de la Germanie et que s’amorce déjà la soumission de large parties de cette Germanie, soumission qui sera la condition préalable de l’Empire carolingien et de l’intégration du monde germanique au monde franc, dont naîtra l’Allemagne” (p. 7). This estimation, however, seems to be a little bit untimely. See C.H.F. Meyer (2002, 219–220) underlining that, although peace was a standard implied in early medieval law codes, it was not the norm. 288 Greg., Hist. 3.6. 289 Cass., Var. 2.41. 290 Greg., Hist. 4.4. 291 Mar., Chron. a. 556; Greg., Hist. 3.7, 4.10.



perceiving the world of war133

the Saxons.292 This last people, in particular, together with the Avars293 and the Lombards,294 continued to cause trouble in later years, requiring that large numbers of troops be sent on a quite regular basis to these regions to restore order.295 The worst period for locals, however – at least according to Gregory’s particularly detailed Histories – might have been the time of the civil war described in an earlier chapter, starting shortly after 561 and ending only in 613.296 In this period, the smallest royal weakness could easily lead to intrigues, either instigated by members of the royal family, by the nobility aiming to seize the throne, or by those hoping to gain a stronger position inside the regional power structures.297 In the seventh century, warfare often resembled more private squabbles between opposing local leaders than conflicts fought between political entities.298 As already suggested, those who fought ceased to be professional soldiers after the late fifth century. The lack of centralised leadership and the fact that soldiers could no longer rely on a regular pay meant that mili­ tary campaigns were executed in a much less organised manner. Apart from tactical failures frequently reported in Merovingian times,299 the presence of armed forces increasingly represented a significant danger for the local inhabitants. Booty became a major motivation for men to join a ruler’s campaign, whereas devastation became an important strate­ gic method of weakening an opponent.300 Military forces now frequently 292 Mar., Chron. a. 555, a. 556; Greg., Hist. 4.10, 4.14, 4.17. 293 Greg., Hist. 4.23, 4.29; Greg., Mart. 12. 294 Greg., Hist. 4.42, 4.44, 6.6; Fred. 4.45. 295 See, for example, on the Saxons/Warni, Greg., Hist. 4.42; Fred. 4.15; on the Bretons, ibid. 4.15. 296 See the first section of the second chapter for the references. In opposition to this, N. Gauthier (1997) assumes that until the plagues of the late sixth century around 587, the sixth century was “une époque de relatif équilibre et de relative prospérité” (p. 61). W. Pohl (2007) argues that “[b]eyond endless wars that Procopius recounted and the dra­ matic scenarios of violence that Gregory of Tours depicted, the sixth century on the whole may not have been any more violent that the ages before and after it” (p. 26). Similar Hen (2007), 93. 297 See, for example, the attempts by Chramn (Greg., Hist. 4.16), Gundovald (ibid. 6.26, 7.10, 7.14, 7.26–38), Ursio and Bertefred (ibid. 9.9, 9.12). 298 This change is well recorded in the altering motives given to explain the occurrence of a military conflict – at least those few that are explicitly mentioned. For example, as we have seen, Theuderic II is reported to have attacked in 610/11 his brother Theudebert II because he believed that the latter was not his real brother. Chlothar II, on the other hand, agreed to stay neutral, as he had been promised some territories. Fred. 4.37; cf. ibid. 4.27. According to A. Hugo (1837, 166), the name Duchy of Dentelenus mentioned here refers to the territory surrounded by the Oise and the Seine. See also Halsall (2003, Warfare), 139. 299 See, for example, the campaigns reported in Greg., Hist. 8.30, 10.9; Fred. 4.87. 300 See, for example, Greg., Hist. 7.2, 8.42, 9.12.

134

chapter four

destroyed housings and fields. Local and regional revolts,301 smaller and larger rebellions,302 as well as hostile inroads by external tribes like the Lombards303 or the Alans304 remained a constant threat to contempo­ raries alongside royal warfare. In the course of the seventh century, the scale of public military encounters apparently decreased in proportion to the number of participants and the geographical scale of a specific conflict. It is, however, possible that the number of small-scale conflicts increased as, due to the decreasing power of the Merovingian kings in the later seventh century, rivalries between local and regional magnates became more important.305 All in all, the sources – or possibly the lack of sources – suggest that the situation of the local population slightly improved in this regard in the course of the seventh century, which might have been a comparatively peaceful period.306 3.2. Participating in Military Activities It has been mentioned that a very large majority of the sources that are still extant were composed by people who themselves had never actively fought in a battle. It is thus not surprising that their works contain very little extensive information on the situation of a military man at war or on the consequences a comparable undertaking could have for every partici­ pant.307 The few secular texts, however, do not contain many more details. Beyond this, as already indicated, the sources that do refer to the experi­ ence of waging war do not always necessarily do so for documentary reasons. When Salvian of Marseilles, for example, compared the voices of the dying in combat outside the city walls to the yelling of the voices of the spectators inside the circus, both mingling to become an undis­ tinguishable screaming,308 his primary aim was not to document the 301 See, for example, the revolt of Rauching following the death of Chilperic I, Greg., Hist. 9.9. 302 See, for example, the revolts of the Saxons and Thuringians, Mar., Chron. a. 556; Greg., Hist. 4.10, 4.16. 303 Mar., Chron. a. 574. 304 Greg., Hist. 4.23, 4.29. 305 See, for example, the conflict between the people of Orleans and Blois against the citizens of Châteaudun shortly after the death of Chilperic, Greg., Hist. 7.2, or the quarrels between the duces Martin and Pippin, and Ebroin, LHF 46. 306 Similar Fouracre (1998), 64. 307 Cf. the fifth- to seventh-century sources, for example, to earlier Roman sources containing a comparable large range of detailed descriptions of military campaigns, as found in the works of C. Julius Caesar, Livius, Tacitus, or Ammianus Marcellinus. 308 Fragor, ut ita dixerim, extra muros et infra muros proeliorum et ludicrorum, confundebatur vox morientium voxque bacchantium, ac vix discerni fortisan poterat



perceiving the world of war135

sound of a battle, but to condemn contemporary ways of living. The same is true with Gregory’s largely idealised depiction of the first panFrankish king Clovis. In his Histories, the bishop described how in 507 the king met the Gothic king Alaric II on the battlefield of Vouillé and emphasised the threats of a combat by recounting how Frankish warriors hurled their javelins from a distance while others fought hand to hand. The king managed to kill his opponent, whereupon a majority of the Goths fled the battlefield. A rare and rather un-heroic moment was recounted when Gregory described how two Goths suddenly rushed to the Frankish king to strike him with their spears, while the king only owed his life to his leather corselet and the speed of his horse.309 While none of these accounts aimed at providing reliable first-hand informa­ tion, they nevertheless do tell us a little bit about what a battle could have been like. What Gregory’s account reveals is that on the battlefield, an individu­ al’s life was constantly threatened, regardless of his social position.310 Among those who survived an armed encounter, many were nonetheless wounded, a factor that entailed an additional threat to their subsequent life and activity in future battles. This was the case for the Frank Sigibert called ‘the Lame’ after his knee had been wounded when he fought the Alamans near the fortress of Zülpich.311 The fact that an individual sur­ vived a one-day-combat did not necessarily mean that he outlived the battle – which could last up to several days312 – nor a subsequent encoun­ ter. More than for a Roman soldier in the time of the Principate,313 being part of a military body was thus dangerous and included a high risk of returning bruised or disabled, or not returning home at all.314 Possible injuries certainly also included trauma or other mental problems known today to likely occur after a comparable experience, even if they remain unmentioned by contemporary authors. plebis heiulatio, quae cadebat in bello, et sonus populi, qui clamabat in circo. Salv., Gub. VI 12, p. 79. 309 Greg., Hist. 2.37. Cf. Cypr., Caes. 1.28. 310 See also LHF 36. 311 Greg., Hist. 2.37. 312 See, for example, a battle mentioned by Gregory to have been fought between Franks against Bretons and Saxons lasted three days. Greg., Hist. 10.9. 313 See Watson (1969), 143–4. 314 See especially the letter of Avitus of Vienne to the vir inluster Apollinaris accounting for the bishop’s fear while the latter was at war, Avit., Epist. 24. Cf. related comments in Shanzer/Wood (2002), 338, fn. 1. See also the difficulties experienced by Merovingian armies when returning home, Greg., Hist. 4.30, 10.3.

136

chapter four

The often absent or at least vague mentions of the casualties of a battle sometimes leave the impression of a certain indifference of those who wrote towards those who fought. Prosper of Aquitaine noted in his Chronicle that when Romans and Goths fought the Huns in the battle at the Catalaunian Fields in 451, “the slaughter of all those who died there was incalculable”.315 A Frankish attack on the Thuringians reportedly ended with such a massacre that the bed of the river Unstrut was piled with corpses.316 The wounded generally remain unmentioned. The major­ ity of the reports on comparably heavy losses refer to the time of the Frankish civil war in the later sixth and early seventh centuries. Large numbers of men, for example, were reportedly slaughtered after the Austrasian dux Wintrio entered Chlothar II’s territories in 592,317 just as two years later when Franks fought the Bretons,318 or when in 595 the army of Childebert II faced the revolting Varni.319 The conflict between Chlothar and the kings Theuderic II and Theudebert II reportedly ended in several murderous slaughters, such as the one that took place in Laffaux in 596.320 This hostility only ended in 611/12 in the subsequent massacres of Toul and Zülpich, where the earth was left covered with bodies.321 References to those who perished in a battle, however, were above all limited to comparable indications, sometimes including a roughly esti­ mated number of casualties. The fact that the majority of these kind of reports refer to the decades around the turn of the seventh century does not make it easy to estimate the losses of earlier or subsequent decades – along with the undeniable difficulty of assessing the casualties of ancient and medieval warfare. 3.3. The Non-military Experience of Military Violence A text that gives a most vivid and personal idea of what it might have been like for an individual to be overcome by an armed attack is the De excidio Thoringiae. As already mentioned, it was composed either by Queen Radegund (who had been the prey of the Franks in her younger years, 315 […] in quo conflictu quamvis neutris cedentibus inaestimabiles strages commorientium factae sint. Prosp., Chron. a. 451, pp. 481–2. Transl. A.C. Murray (2000), 73. 316 Greg., Hist. 3.7; cf. LHF 37. See also Greg., Hist. 9.25. 317 Fred. 4.14; cf. LHF 36. 318 Fred. 4.15. 319 Ibid. 4.15. 320 Ibid. 4.17. 321 Ibid. 4.38.



perceiving the world of war137

following the defeat of the Thuringians,322 and was forcibly married to their King Chlothar I), or on her behalf by her friend the poet Venantius Fortunatus:323 The captive maid given to a hostile lord, her power fell,  from the heights of glory to the lowest depths. The entourage of servants, standing resplendent, her youthful peers  where dead is a day, besmirched with funeral ashes. The bright attendant halo of powerful ministers,  now lie still without tomb or funeral service. The conquering flame belching, reddens the gold hair of her beloved  while the milk-white woman lies on the ground. Alas, the corpses lie shamefully unburied on the field,  an entire people, strewn in a common grave. Not Troy alone must mourn her ruins:  the Thuringian land suffered equal slaughter. The matron was rapt away, with streaming hair, bound fast  without even a sad farewell to the household gods. Nor could the captive press a kiss on the threshold  nor cast one backward glance toward what was lost. A wife’s naked feet trod in her husband’s blood  and the tender sister stepped over the fallen brother. The boy torn from his mother’s embrace, his funeral plaint  hung on her lips, with all her tears unshed. So to lose the life of a child is not the heaviest lot,  gasping, the mother lost even her pious tears.324

A few decades earlier, Caesarius of Arles described the siege of his episco­ pal civitas by some Franks and Burgundians in 507 in a comparable manner: But since dire calamity struck our eyes at the time of the siege and now afflicts them in time of death, and scarcely anyone survives to care for the 322 See Greg., Hist. 3.7. 323 Ex. Thor. See the discussion in McNamara/Halborg (1992), 65, fn. 22. See also Reydellet (1994), xxii. 324 […] missa sub hostili domino captiva potestas,/ decidit in humili gloria celsa loco./ stans aetate pari famulorum turba nitentum/ funereo sordet pulvere functa die./ clara ministrorum stipata corona [potentum]/ nulla sepulchra tenens mortis honore caret./ flammivomum vincens rutilans in crinibus aurum/ strata solo recubat laeticolor amati./ heu male texerunt inhumata cadavera campum,/ totaque sic uno gens iacet in tumulo./ non iam sola suas lamentet Troia ruinas:/ pertulit et caedes terra Thoringa pares./ hinc rapitur laceris matrona revincta capillis,/ nec laribus potuit dicere triste vale./ oscula non licuit captivo infigere posti/ nec sibi visuris ora referre locis./ nuda maritalem calcavit planta cruorem/ blandaque transibat fratre iacente soror./ raptus ab amplexu matris puer ore pependit,/ funereas planctu nec dedit ullus aquas,/ sorte gravi minus est nati sic perdere vitam:/ perdidit et lacrimas mater anhela pias. Ex. Thor. ll. 9–31, pp. 271–2. Transl. J.A. McNamara (1992), 65–6.

138

chapter four bodies of men who have died and need burial, consider also those evils which we have borne through the just judgement of God, when entire pro­ vinces were led into captivity, mothers of families abducted, pregnant women carried off, little children torn from arms and thrown into the road, half-dead, while their nurses are not permitted to keep living children or to bury the dead. On all sides there is great agony and grief. One bewails her little child thrown to the birds and dogs; another fears to offend her barba­ rian master. Fear and horror equally continue to torture hearts. Burdens are placed on their shoulders; their spirit is worn out from great torments, their body exhausted by heavy loads. Wicked savage power especially demanded of such women that one who knew she was mistress of many slaves sud­ denly grieved that she was a servant of the barbarians and without wealth. […] The barbarians demanded hard services of delicate, noble women with­ out any compassionate pity. While we see and behold such calamities, the noise of their shouting rises to our ears from those who lost their husbands or parents in that siege. In the flesh of men unfeeling, even if stony feelings are found in some men? Who would not grieve upon hearing and seeing this, and in the person of those who were struck bewail himself rather than them?325

Although some details might very well be exaggerated, both depictions give a generally plausible idea of the situation an individual could be con­ fronted with in the context of an armed attack, especially when compar­ ing these accounts to the misery known to have been inflicted on the civilian population in better documented periods in history.326 As already indicated, for many Romans citizens, among whom many might have seen a comparable degree of cruelty inside the circuses alone before the end of the fourth century, the gradual collapse of the limes since the third century, and the subsequent barbarian inroads, were a 325 […] at cum oculos nostros dira calamitas et tempore obsidionis percusserit, et nunc tempore mortalitatis affligat, mortuorumque hominum sepeliendis corporibus vix illi qui remanere videbantur occurrant; considerantes etiam illa mala, quae iusto Dei iudicio, quando totae provinciae in captivitatem ductae sunt, sustinuimus, matres familias abductas, praegnantes abscisas, et nutrices avulsis e manibus parvulis atque in via semivivis proiectis nec vivos ipsos filios retinere, nec mortuos permissae sunt sepelire … Cruciatus in utroque magnus et dolor: haec dolebat avibus canibusque proiectum suum parvulum: haec metuebat offendere dominum barbaricum. Timor et horror tortores cordis pariter insistebant. Inposita etiam humeris pondera: anima in tantis cruciatibus delassata, gravi pondere fatigabatur et corpus; et maxime a talibus feminis hoc impia barbarica exigebat potentia, ut ea, quae se sciebat multorum mancipiorum fuisse dominam, barbarorum se subito sine ullo pretio lugeret ancillam. […] Strepitus clamoris huius in auribus nostris ab eis, qui coniuges et parentes illo impetu perdiderunt, exurgit, dum talia conspicimus atque talia videmus. Numquid ferreae sunt carnes hominum, etiamsi sensus ferreus in aliquibus inveniatur? Quis ista audiens vidensque non doleat, atque in eis, qui percussi sunt, se potius quam illos plangat? Caes., Serm. 70.2, pp. 160–2. Transl. M.M. Mueller (1956), 331–2. 326 Alongside modern time warfare see, for example, the reports of William of Tyre, Tyr., Chron. 8.20; Lamp. Ann. a. 1075.



perceiving the world of war139

terrible shock that suddenly upended their world. This experience raised questions about the most elementary aspects of their own existence, including the question of whether God really existed.327 Barbarian incur­ sions, in fact, could be very violent. This is what various sources suggest, even if they mostly remain vague when referring to warfare. According to them, cities like Arles or Valence had been overrun and subsequently looted by Goths,328 just like the former capital of Trier.329 Formerly fertile fields were ravaged and ruined.330 Large aristocratic estates, such as the manor belonging to the prefect Auspicius near Sens, were not spared either.331 It has been mentioned above that, according to the poet Ori­ entius, early-fifth-century Gaul appeared filled with the smoke of a funeral pyre.332 Other sources refer to the result of the barbarian incursions, which included the impoverishment of the local population, among which at least some aristocrats were particularly badly struck.333 Beyond this, several Romans from northern Gaul had been dispossessed around the year 440 to the advantage of Alans who had been settled there.334 If the account of the seventh-century Life of St Vedast refers to a real occurence, the city of Arras in northern Gaul had been abandoned in the fifth century following an attack by Huns. Subsequently and until the time of Clovis, it apparently remained the exclusive home of wild animals, some of which settled inside the town’s cathedral.335 Other cities like Bordeaux, Limoges, or Javols at least seemed to have lacked a bishop, which meant that churches became ruinous to the point that cattle again could graze inside their overgrown walls.336 327 According to Salvian, these events instigated contemporaries to ask i.a. Si ergo [..] respicit res humanas deus, si curat, si diligit, si gubernat, cur nos infirmiores omnibus gentibus et miseriores esse permittit? Cur vinci a barbaris patitur ? Cur iuri hostium subiugari?, Salv., Gub. VI 12, p. 47. Cf. ibid. 1.1, 1.2. Cf. Roberts (1992), 101–2; Favez (1957), 77. See also the dialogue of the fifth century comedian Querolus, Quer. 112, which is also suggesting that contemporaries felt that they were not getting what they thought deserving, to the detri­ ment of inferiors. 328 On Valence, see Chron. 452., a. 411.19; on Arles, see Prosp., Chron. a. 425. Cf. Am., XV 11.14; Aus., Ordo 10. 329 Salv., Gub. VI 15. See also Fred. 3.7. 330 Prosp., Carm., ll. 913–14; Rut, ll. 19–22. Cf. Aus., Mos. ll. 454–60; Salv., Gub. VII 2. 331 Sev., Dial. III 7.1. See also Prosp., Carm. ll. 903–7. 332 Orient. 2, l. 184. Cf. Roberts (1992), 97. See also ibid. 100–1. 333 See Poema ll. 14–30. Cf. Courcelle (1964), 86. 334 Chron. 452., a. 441. G. Halsall (2007, Migrations, 249) suggests that the purpose of re-allocating land between barbarians and Romans was to repress the troubles caused by the bagaudae. 335 Jon., Ved. 6. 336 Sid., Epist. VII 6.7–8.

140

chapter four

It is hard to tell to what extent these accounts accurately reflect reality. All in all, however, there is little reason to doubt that life in the fifth cen­ tury was characterised to a significant extent by a general feeling of inse­ curity. This feeling was certainly amplified from a Roman perspective as they faced the new barbarian authorities, an uneasy situation that is well documented by Sidonius’ correspondence as a bishop, written in the mid­ dle of the fighting between various tribes. His letters contain numerous requests for news on the condition of relatives and friends. In a letter addressed to his friend Felix, the prelate described the situation of his home-civitas Clermont: Gozolas […] brings you a letter from me, which I have penned in great anxi­ ety; for the armed bands of the tribes that surrounded us are terrifying our town, which they regard as a sort of barrier restricting their frontiers. So we are set in the midst of two rival propels and are become the pitiable prey of both; suspected by the Burgundians, and next neighbours of the Goths, we are spared neither the fury of our invaders nor the malignity of our protec­ tors. But this subject I will continue another day. Meanwhile, if things go well at least with you, I rejoice: […].337

Sidonius’ testimony is not the only source indicating that the presence of armed hosts caused great fear among the local population.338 The latefifth-century Life of Eugendus described how an attack by Alamans in the Jura was so feared by the local clerics that they preferred looking for salt by the Mediterranean Sea rather than collecting it from a nearer source, as “repeated onslaughts of fear kill a person as many times as he is afraid”.339 337 Gozolas […] defert litteras meas, quas granditer anxius exaravi. oppidum siquidem nostrum quasi quandam sui limitis obicem circumfusarum nobis gentium arma terrificant. sic aemulorum sibi in medio positi lacrimabilis praeda populorum, suspecti Burgundionibus, proximi Gothis, nec impugnantum ira nec propugnantum caremus invidia. sed istinc alias. interea, si vel penes vos recta sunt, bone est. Sid., Epist. III 4, p. 43. Transl. W.B. Anderson (1997), 21–3. For other requests for news, see Sid., Epist. V 3.1, V 12.2, VII 1.1–3, VII 1.10; Avit., Epist. 35, 87; Fort., Carm. 7.20, 7.21; Arta. On the general situation of Gaul in the fifth cen­ tury, see Chron. 452, a. 451; Sid., Epist. V 6. 12.1, VII 1.1–3. On fear of barbarians see, for example, Sid., Epist. V 6, VII 14.10; cf. Greg., Hist. 2.23. Salvian uses the Roman anxiety of barbarians to emphasise the latter’s sins, Salv., Gub. IV 12, V 5. 338 See also Germanus, Epist. Aus. 9. 339 Quadam namque vice, dum diros metuunt ac vicinos Alamannorum incursus, qui inopinatis viantibus non congressione in comminus, sed ritu superventuque solent inruere bestiali, ad mortem aut suspicionem mortis penitus evitandam, quae crebro timoris iaculo totiens interimit, quotiens timetur, et limite Tyrreni maris potius, quam de vicinis Aeriensium locis coctile decernunt petere sal. Vit. Iur. 3.17, p. 161. Transl. T. Vivian, K. Vivian, and J.B. Russell (1999), 173. On the collection of the Lives of the Jura Fathers and its tradition, of which the Life of Eugendus is part of, see the extensive introduction by F. Martine (1968), 11–234. Cf. nam quod scribis te metu hostium hebetem factum, Rur., Epist. 2.65, p. 442.



perceiving the world of war141

In the early Middle Ages, in particular, the presence of an enemy host almost necessarily entailed the pillage of movable property and/or the destruction of fields and housing.340 The sources only rarely mention an army leader who attempted to prevent his men from committing crimes against the local population, or heads of an army able to hold sway in this regard, as king Clovis is reported to have done.341 Recounting a military encounter between Chilperic and his brother Guntramn, Gregory of Tours reported that “King Chilperic found it impossible to keep his troops from plundering, and he had to have the Count of Rouen executed on the spot.”342 The bishop continued that: When the troops who were besieging Bourges received the order to with­ draw and return home, they stole so much booty that, as they evacuated it, the entire region seemed empty of inhabitants and cattle. As they passed through the Tours area, the men led by Desiderius and Bladast set fire to everything, stole everything that they could lay their hands on, and murdered the inhabitants out of hand, just as if they were in an enemy country.343

Gregory’s account leaves the impression that when a military host was on the march no member of the local population was safe, including those living in the territories ruled by the same king under whose command the 340 A comparably hostile behaviour is reported in connection with military activities throughout the whole period that this study is focusing on. See, for example: Orient. 2, l. 184; Rut, ll. 19–22; Prosp., Carm. 2, ll. 903–14; Salv., Gub. VI 15; VII 2; Sev., Dial. III 7.1; Prosp., Chron. a. 425; Chron. 452., a. 411.19; Sid., Epist. II 2.1–2, 3.7, III 2.2, VII 6.7, VII 6.8, VII 6.10; Sid., Carm. 7, ll. 246–50; Avit., Epist. 87; Chron. 511, a. 465, a. 509; Caes., Sermo 70.2; Cyprian, Caes. 1.28; Mar., Chron. a. 509, a. 556; Jon., Ved. 6; Fred. 2.60, 3.4, 3.7, 4.17, 4.20, 4.37; LHF 22, 37, 53. According to T. Scharff, “[stehen] Durchzug und Verwüstung [..] in der Historiographie als Zeichen für Herrschaft über das so heimgesuchte Territorium – ob die Akte in der Realität stattgefunden haben oder auch nicht.” Scharff (2009), 468–9. 341 Capit. 1; Greg., Hist 2.37. In later years the Church stated that quia arma nobis non sunt and attempted to protect its properties by threatening obstinate offenders with excommunication, see Conc. Tur. 25, p. 134. 342 Chilpericus vero rex, cum exercitu suo a praedis arcere non possit, Rhodomaginsem comitem gladio tracidavit. Greg., Hist. 6.31, pp. 300–1. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 360. Sigibert I encountered comparable difficulties when trying to stop his troops from plundering, Hist. 4.49. 343 Ad isti qui Bitoricas obsedebant, accepto mandato, ut reverterentur ad propriam, tantas praedas secum sustulerunt, ut omnes regio illa, unde egressi sunt, valde potaretur evacuata vel de hominibus vel de ipsis pecoribus. Ingressus quoque exercitus Desiderii atque Bladastis per Toronicam, incendia, praedas et homicidia tanta fecerunt, sicut solet contra inimicos fieri. Greg., Hist. 6.31, p. 301. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 360–1. Comparable accounts may be found throughout the whole works of Gregory of Tours, see for example; Greg., Hist. 2.6, 2.7, 3.6, 3.12, 4.16, 4.42, 4.47, 4.49, 4.50, 5.13, 5.31, 6.31, 7.2, 7.10, 7.12, 7.13, 7.21, 7.24, 7.38, 8.30, 8.31, 8.42, 10.3, 10.9, Greg., Jul. 7, 13; Mart. 12, 30, 65, 104; Virt. 2.7. See also the comments in Bodmer (1957), 93.

142

chapter four

marauding host stood.344 The fact that the majority of the recorded cases mentioning that the local population had been harmed by military men were located in Tours or its closer surroundings suggests that they must have been much more frequent than documented elsewhere in Gaul.345 The bishop’s works mention several cases where, as soon as the local pop­ ulation heard of an oncoming army, they sought the protection of the saints by hiding inside a nearby church. However, this sacred location did not always provide the expected safeguard. When in 532, for example, a host led by King Theuderic I headed towards the Auvergne and “ravaged and destroyed the entire region”:346 The army ran riot through the whole region, attacking everything, destroy­ ing everything. Some of Theuderic’s troops came to the church of Saint Julian: They destroyed the locks, broke open the doors, stole the possessions of the poor inhabitants, which had been put there for safety and did as much damage as they could.347

Another means of avoiding a comparable experience was to leave a threatened area permanently. More than a half century before, in the early 470s, Sidonius Apollinaris wrote a letter to recommend a deacon who apparently hoped to escape the violence conducted by current Gothic incursions. He had taken flight with his family to the region of Auxerre, where he expected to be granted permission to settle.348 That armed violence was not the only threat common people had to face is sug­ gested by another letter by Sidonius recommending some people who were travelling to the Auvergne. They had been searching for a female relative who had recently been carried off by outlaws349 after the villains 344 See also Greg., Hist. 7.24. See, however, ibid. 10.9, showing that not all military men approved the pillaging of their own local population. 345 War and pillaging in and around Tours are recorded, for example, in Greg., Hist. 4.47, 5.2, 5.4, 5.13, 5.14, 6.12, 6.45, 7.12, 7.24, 8.40, 10.5, 10.9. Lootings in and around his home­ town Clermont are recorded, for example, in ibid. 3.11, 3.12, 3.16, 8.30; Greg., Jul. 13, 14. 346 […] totam regionem devastat ac proterit. Greg., Hist. 3.12, p. 108. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 171. 347 […] exercitus cunctam circuit miseram regionem illam, cuncta delet, universa debellat. De quibus nonnuli ad basilicam sancti perveniunt, confringunt ostia, seras removent resque pauperum, quae ibidem fuerant adgregatae, diripiunt et multa in hoc loco perpetrant mala. Greg., Hist. 3.12, p. 108. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 172. Similar Greg., Hist. 7.35; Greg., Greg., Mart. 104. Greg., Jul. 13. It seems noteworthy that the local elite from the Auvergne subsequently accepted their membership to the Frankish realm, as assessed by I. Heidrich (1968), 182. See also the Gregory’s testimony, who was a native from the Auvergne. His works do not contain any contestation of the rightfulness of the Merovingian rulership. 348 Sid., Epist. VI 10. See also Rur., Epist. 2.8. 349 This is the interpretation offered by W.B. Anderson (1997, 260, fn. 1) of the appar­ ently Germanic word Vargi.



perceiving the world of war143

had killed another man on the road, certainly to sell her in the open market.350 The local inhabitants were not well treated in the event of a siege, where tactical advantages generally prevailed over the will to protect the urban population. When the Burgundian king Godigisel, for example, was besieged by his brother Gundobad in his city of Vienne and the provisions began to run short, he ordered his men to drive the common people out of the city walls. As soon as the enemy had managed to open the gateway, the townsfolk were slaughtered by the two opposing forces.351 This same procedure of exposing the local population to the enemy, which had the tactical advantage for those who stayed inside that the risk of famine and disease noted in the context of other sieges352 was minimised, is also reported in the context of the siege of Comminges in the year 585.353 The besieging army, on the other hand, tended to pillage and devastate the surrounding fields and settlements,354 certainly to weaken the enemy, but possibly also hoping to provoke the locked up party to make a sally. Apart from a risky counter-attack, all that was left to the inhabitants who were lucky enough to stay inside a besieged city was prayer. According to Gregory, this is at least what the people of Bazas and Orleans, facing an attack by the Huns, did.355 After a comparable siege, the local population had to cope with the destruction of their fields and buildings,356 and take care of the bodies of those who had perished. This was the fate of the inhabitants of Clermont following a Gothic siege in the year 474 when, according to their bishop Sidonius, their fields were left covered with unburied bodies.357 350 Sid., Epist. VI 4.1–2. Cf. Knight (2007), 44. For other abductions reported, see Aus., Bis. 3; Vit. Iur. 3.5; Ex. Thor. ll. 9–10; Arta. ll. 3–4, 278. The prisoners made in the course of a battle, see Vit. Ept. 12–13; Fred. 4.20, were generally enslaved or released after the payment of a compensation: see Greg., Hist. 3.15, 4.49. 351 Greg., Hist. 2.33. See also ibid. 3.21. 352 Salv., Gub. VI 15; Sid., Epist. VII 7; Vit. Genov. 34. 353 Greg., Hist. 7.34. 354 Avit., Epist. 87; Greg., Hist. 2.32, 7.12; Greg., Mart. 12. 355 On Bazas, see Greg., Mart. 12; on Orleans, see Greg., Virt. 2.7. See also Sev., Dial. III 7.1; Fred. 3.1. The Life of St Genovefa reports that the citizens of Paris fearing an attack by the Huns attempted to save their goods by hiding them in other cities. Vit. Genov. 10. A similar procedure had already been initiated by Sidonius in Clermont, see Sid., Epist. VII 1.2 and Stevens (1933), 152–3, with further references. 356 During this siege of Arles, for example, the monastery that Caesarius had started to build for his sister had been destroyed almost completely, Cypr., Caes. 1.28. 357 Sid., Epist. III 2.1. See also ibid. III 3.8; Caes., Sermo 70.2. Cf. Salv., Gub. VI 15. For a more detailed description of the early 470s sieges of Clermont, as seen by Sidonius Apollinaris, see Stevens (1933), 141–60.

144

chapter four

3.4. Thinking Peace The subject that has not been dealt with in further detail until here is the significance of peace for people living after the Pax Romana,358 and the expectations they associated with it. According to E. James, the ancient meaning of peace (pax) included the idea of “the security of sanctuary, the settlement of a dispute by compromise, the absence of violence of any kind”.359 It does not seem farfetched to assume that when peace ceased to be a general condition,360 the re-establishment of the same was ardently desired by contemporaries. Sidonius Apollinaris alluded to a comparable wish in his correspondence. When the city of Clermont had been ceded to the Goths subsequent to their heavy sieges in the 470s, the bishop expressed his indignation towards this decision in a letter addressed to the bishop Graecus, in which he deplored that: For such is now the condition of our unhappy corner that, as report declares, its plight was less miserable in war than it is now in peace. […] Is this our due reward for enduring want and fire and sword and pestilence, for swords fed fat with gore and warriors emaciated with hunger? Was it for the pros­ pect of this famous peace that we ripped the herbage from the cracks in our walls and took it away for food, and that in our ignorance we were often poisoned by noxious grasses, […].361

Although his letter documents that the inhabitants of Clermont must have desperately hoped for the re-establishment of peace while threat­ ened by their besiegers, it likewise records the despair that followed the awareness that the end of these military struggles did not entail the qui­ etude they had expected to regain. Comparably explicit mentions of a desire for peace are rare and many related references were made in a 358 This term still appears i.a. in Prosper’s Chronicle referring to the year 453: Apud Gothos intra Gallias consistentes inter filios Theodoris regis, quorum Thorismodus maximus natu patri successerat, orta dissensio est, et cum rex ea moliretur, quae et Romanae paci et Gothicae adversarentur quieti, a germanis suis, quia noxiis dispositionibus inrevocabiliter instaret, occisus est. Prosp. Chron. a. 453, p. 483. See also pax abiit terris. Poema l. 30, p. 345. See also Southern (2007, 80), underlining that although the time of the Roman Peace was not completely spared of military violence, most inhabitants of the Roman Empire lived in relative peace. 359 James (1983), 46. 360 See, however, Salvian deploring the negative outcomes of such a long-lasting peace, Salv., Gub. VI 12, VII 1.5. 361 […] siquidem nostril hic nunc est infelicis anguli status, cuius, ut fama confirmat, minus (tristis) fuit sub bello quam sub pace condicio. […] hoccine meruerunt inopia flamma, ferrum pestilential, pingues caedibus gladii et macri ieiuniis proeliatores? propter huius tam inclitae pacis expectationem avulsas muralibus rimis herbas in cibum traximus. Sid., Epist. VII 7.1 and VII 7.3, pp. 110–11. Transl. W.B. Anderson (1997), 325–7. Similar ibid. VII 7.1.



perceiving the world of war145

context that cannot be clearly defined.362 Several mentions, nevertheless, do document that people must have been tired of the unstable situation Gaul had experienced since at least the mid-fifth century. Shortly after a peace treaty had been concluded between Romans and Goths, Sidonius, for example, wrote the following to the bishop Julianus: […] my Lord Bishop, join your prayers with those of your holy brethren in beseeching Christ that he may be pleased to prosper what we do, and that, allaying the quarrels and restraining the hostilities of our dominion, he may bless those people with gentleness, ourselves with peace, and all with free­ dom from fear.363

It has been mentioned above that the second panegyric of Merobaudes, which had been composed two decades earlier, likewise documented the desire for peace, following Aëtius’ campaigns.364 Both wishes had been expressed in a time when there was hope that Gaul would soon calm down.365 It seems noteworthy that the desire for peace was primarily expressed more explicitly at moments when contemporaries could expect an end to the violence.366 Considering the late fifth-century Frankish con­ quests, there is no doubt that the struggles went on, nevertheless. The last at least implicit reference to a more stable peace is contained in a letter that the Burgundian king Gundobad addressed to Avitus of Vienne. He wrote: I thought that I should consult Your Holiness about the interpretation of a text from the prophet. I’ve appended the passage below. Deign to write and tell me whether the times referred to have already occurred, or whether they lie in the future. 362 See for example Aus., Precatio consulis designati pridie kal. ian. fascibus sumptis l. 20, in MGH AA 5.2 (1883), p. 18; Paul, Carm. 5, ll. 71–3; Orient. 1, ll. 613–14. 363 […] proinde, domine papa, cum sacrosanctis fratribus vestris pariter Christo supplicaturas iungite preces, ut dignatus prosperare quae gerimus nostrique dominii temperans lites arma compescens illos muneretur innocentia, nos quiete, totos securitate. Sid., Epist. IX 5.2, p. 153. Transl. W.B. Anderson (1997), 521. A more unconfident statement in regards to peace can be found in ibid. VII 10.2. 364 Most explicit in Merob., Paneg. 2, l. 189. Similar: Fort., Carm. 7.1a, ll. 14–18. See also Tempore belligero pacis nova gaudia surgunt. Fort., Carm. 7.21, l. 11, p. 174. See also J.M. Wallace-Hadrill (1975) underlining in regards to peace that “it was significant that the goddess of peace was iconographically very like the goddess of victory” (p. 158). 365 See Elton (1992), 170. 366 Compare to the much less explicit statements noted in less peaceful times as, for example Si ratio temporumque pateretur, Sid., Epist. VII 10, p. 117, or utinam haec esset Arvernae forma vel causa regionis, ut minus excusabiles iudicaremur! […] nam si commeandi libertas pace revocetur. Sid., Epist. VII 11, p. 118. The poems of Venantius Fortunatus, written in the time of the Merovingian civil wars, however, are likewise characterised by a certain esteem for peace see, for example, Fort., Carm. 6.1, 6.2, 7.21, 7.24.

146

chapter four  ‘For the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among many peoples, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid.’367

The king’s question could suggest that the moment in time when he com­ posed his letter appeared to be peaceful – at least to him.368 However, it is likewise possible that the king wanted to know whether he could expect that a more peaceable time was still to come in the future. In any case, the king imagined this peace as a temporary period. In a letter that Avitus of Vienne addressed to a certain Aurelianus, pos­ sibly composed at about the same time – its exact context and meaning, however, remain difficult369 – the author expressed his disillusionment in regard to the likelihood of an impending and lasting peace. He advised the recipient to see in a current “brief period of peace” – possibly referring to the truce between the Burgundians and the Franks in the late fifth century370 – “a respite from the crises that we suffer rather than an end to them” adding that “this ‘peace’ seems teasingly only to set a limit to the discomforts of our misfortunes rather than to cure them, in order that future groaning may the more seriously affect minds that have been relaxed by a false sense of security, when cause for fear arises again”, which would be why Aurelianus should “stop believing that there is an end to troubles” and be smart enough to take advantage of any moment of calm.371 One century later, Gregory reported that the brother of a man 367 De prophetica lectione sanctitatem vestram censui consulendam, cuius lectionis exemplar subter adieci. Et ideo utrum iam tempora ista fuerint, an futura sint, scripto vestro declarare dignamini. Ex Sion procedet lex et verbum domini ex Hierusalem. Et iudicabit inter plebes multas et redarguet gentes validas usque longe. Et concident gladios suos in aratra et lanceas suas in falces. Et iam non extollet gens super gentem gladium, et iam non stabunt belligerare. Et requiescet unus quisque sub vinea sua et sub ficu sua: et non erit qui in timorem mittat eos. Avit., Epist. 21, p. 54. Transl. D. Shanzer and I.N. Wood (2002), 202. Gundobad quoted the Old Testament in Micah 4.2–4. 368 Cf. Shanzer/Wood (2002), 201. 369 Avit., Epist. 37. On the difficulties regarding this letter and the possible identities of Aurelianus, see Shanzer/Wood (2002), 324–5. 370 See Greg., Hist. 2.28, 2.32, 2.33. 371 […] temporariae pacis […]. Quandoquidem hoc ipsum, quod inter adversitates temporum respiramus, discriminum, quae patimur, intervallum magis debemus putare quam terminum. Nam ideirco tantum incommodis calamitatum circumscribendis potius quam sanandis pax quaedam videtur adludere, ut mentes fallaci securitate laxates instaurato gravius metu secciduus gemitus adficiat. Quo circa desiste, vir optime, in malis ferventibus credere finem malorum. Avit., Epist. 37, p. 66. Transl. D. Shanzer and I.N. Wood (2002), 325. Similar Avit., Epist. 87.



perceiving the world of war147

from the region of Tours called Dado had asked his local priest to “[l]et us keep the vigils in the church of God, and let us pray devoutly to the power of the blessed Nicetius, so that through his intercession we may pass this year in peace.”372 He did not claim general quietude but only asked for a short break in the violence. Until the sixth century, the term pax normally referred to absence of warfare,373 whereas in the seventh century it was used almost exclusively to refer to a more general lack of violence.374 A certain man called Chrodinus, who had been asked in the late sixth century to take over the office of the Austrasian maior domus, for exam­ ple, is quoted by the Chronicle of Fredegar to have explained his denial with the words: ‘I am not capable of establishing peace in Austrasia, the majority of those in power and their children there are of my kin. I can neither install discipline under these conditions nor kill anyone among them. But they will revolt against me and act harmfully. […]’375

The chronicle here did not refer to the establishment of peace in the sense of an end to military violence, but more to the reduction of violence in general. Whether this altered focus went back to a significant reduction of armed conflicts is hard to tell due to the comparatively scarce evi­ dence  regarding seventh-century warfare. However, the sources did record enough related occurrences to make this assumption at least rather unlikely, as small-scale armed violence, which tended to be omit­ ted by the sources more easily than large battles, seems to have become more common. 372 ‘Vigilemus unanimiter ad eclesiam Dei atque exoremus devote beati Niceti potentiam, ut, eo obtenente, huius anni curriculum cum pace ducamus.’ Greg., Patr. 8.11, p. 701. Transl. E. James (1991), 63. The man finally did not even show up himself for the vigils. The idea of a long lasting ‘peace’, however, is still implied, for example, in the seventh-century Life of Audoin of Rouen referring to the times of peace following the late Roman persecutions of Christians: hic in pacis tempore, desinente persecutione. Vit. Aud. 6, 557. 373 See, for example, the letter to the bishops of Gaul composed by King Clovis himself: laicis qui extra pace sunt captivati […] de his qui in pace nostra tam clerici quam laici subrepti fuissent. Capit. 1, p. 2; Flaviano condam pacis mediante concordia. Vita Ept. 8, p. 189. In the early seventh century Life of Radegund, the term pax does not refer that clearly to the absence of war. It could also simply refer to lack of dissension between the kings: Et, intercedente ea, pax regum, mitigatio belli, salus patriae aderat. Baud., Rad. 10, pp. 384–5. 374 This significance is neither uncommon in earlier sources see, for example, Rut. 1, l. 213. Cf. J.M. Wallace-Hadrill (1975), suggesting that to Germans peace was foremost “absence of hostility” (p. 161). See also the Pactus pro tenore pacis (Capit. 3) which, accord­ ing to C. De Clercq (1936), “veut avant tout réprimer le brigandage” (p. 35). 375 ‘Pacem ego in Auster facere non valeo, maxime omnes primati cum liberis in totum Auster mihi consanguinei sunt; non posso ex eis facere disciplinam nec quemquam interfecere. Ipse vero per me insurgunt, ut agant supersticiose. […]’. Fred. 3.58, p. 109.

148

chapter four

The re-establishment of peace in the sense of non-violent living condi­ tions remained an aim throughout the Merovingian age. The word pax was frequently found, alongside the term libertas, on contemporary coins and may have referred to this aim or wish.376 Beyond this, the Merovingian kings initiated the writing of laws primarily addressed to the non-Roman population.377 According to their authors, their primary aim was the re-establishment of a more stable general situation inside Gaul.378 These laws certainly settled a large number of local conflicts, as they defined a fixed punishment for numerous crimes that could have caused disputes, together with an adequate compensation that an aggrieved party could claim from the offender.379 The enforcement of this practice, however, was not always easy and often needed some further pressure, not least because it appears that a payment did not always seem acceptable to everybody as the sole reparation for a sustained injury. Besides the kings, the only institution with enough authority to enforce these laws was the Church whose members, as mentioned above, were the most ardent advocators for peace.380 Gregory of Tours, for example, related that when in 585 he heard of a harsh dispute between some inha­ bitants of his diocese, he immediately interceded. When the affair risked getting out of hand, his church even agreed to pay the compensation that 376 See Callu (1980), 189–199. 377 Romans are only explicitly considered in cases where they were affected by or affected non-Romans, or as soon as they were part of the royal court. See, for example Lex Sal. 14.2, 14.3, 41.8, 41.9, 42.4. In rare exceptions Romans are considered by themselves, see for example Lex Sal. 16.5. 378 The prologue to the Pactus Legis Salica claims to aim at ut pro servandum inter se pacis stadium omnia incrementa ‹virtutum› rixarum resecare deberent. Lex Sal. 1, p. 2. The first paragraph of the Pactus pro tenore pacis states Ut, quia multorum insaniae convaluerunt, malis pro inmanitate scelerum digna reddantur, Capit. 3.1, p. 4. Similar Ut pax et disciplina in regno nostro sit. Ibid. 9.11, p. 22; pro pace atque disciplina facienda, ibid. 9.14, p. 22. See also the comments in Woll (1995), 104–5. The justification reportedly given by the usurper Rauching likewise suggests that the aim to maintain peace was considered positive enough by the authorities to be used as a pretext. He configens se quasi tractaturus de pace, ut inter terminum utriusque regni nulla intentio aut dereptio gereretur. Greg., Hist. 9.19, p. 421. 379 On small offenses see, for example Lex Sal. 16.7. On homicide, see ibid. 41. See also, for example Form. Marc. 1.18. The rough tone of the fifth paragraph of the Decretum Childeberti, however, suggests that homicide remained a problem throughout the sixth century: De homicidiis vero ita iussimus observare, ut quicumque ausu termerario alium sine causa occiderit vitae periculum feriatur: nam non de precio redemptionis se redimat aut componat. Forsitan convenit ut ad solutionem quisque discendat, nullus de parentibus aut amicis ei quicquam adiuvet; nisi qui praesumperit ei aliquid adiuvare, suum weregildum omnio componat; quia iustum est, ut qui novit occidere, discat morire, Capit. 7.5, p. 16. Cf. Wallace-Hadrill (1975), 159–60. 380 See Graus (1965), 368–7, with further references. See also Bachrach (2003), 24.



perceiving the world of war149

the guilty party had initially been requested to pay, in order to avoid fur­ ther casualties.381 This case, nonetheless, was only settled after one of the two disputants had been killed by the other.382 When, in 575, King Sigibert I planned to attack his half-brother Chilperic who had previously attacked some territories assigned to him,383 Bishop Germanus of Paris pleaded in front of the king for an end of the hostilities384 and begged his wife Queen Brunhild in a letter to convince her husband not to attack the territories around his own episcopal see.385 In the course of the sixth and seventh centuries, the commitment to peace by negotiation became a major Christian function particularly praised in the saints.386 Naturally, bishops were favoured conciliators who were also preferably appointed by the kings, as when Dagobert I, following his marriage in 625, requested the handover of Austrasian territories from his father Chlothar II.387 The epis­ copal endeavour for peace, however, was not restricted to open conflicts between the kings or their subjects. It also included important efforts to anticipate or stop any kind of violence against individuals, regardless of who had been threatened. When Caesarius of Arles, for example, heard that his opponent Lucinianus was to be stoned, he reportedly interceded promptly to plead for his misdoings and their atonement by the perfor­ mance of penance.388 Even a criminal of the diocese of Angoulême who had been condemned to be hanged by and with the full approval of the local mob was reportedly saved by the efforts of the recluse Eparchius, despite his obvious guilt.389 Two other bishops reportedly attempted to calm a riot that had been instigated in Trier against the Roman aristocrat Parthenius,390 who soon sought protection in the local church – although without success.391 Large numbers of people, nevertheless, had been 381 Greg., Hist. 7.47. C.H.F. Meyer underlines that “Gregor als Mann der Kirche lehnte die Gewalt ab, waren auch seine Rechtsvorstellungen wie die der Merowingerzeit insgesamt vom Rachegedanken geprägt” Meyer (2002), 232. Already Caesarius of Arles exhorted his flock Litigare vis cum inimico tuo? Prius litiga cum corde tuo. […] Noli odisse, […]. Quid tu vis vindicare? Ideo enim odisti, ut vindiceris. Caes., Sermo 35.1, pp. 194–6. 382 Greg., Hist. 9.19. 383 Ibid. 4.45, 4.47, 4.49. 384 Ibid. 4.51. 385 Epist. Aus. 9. 386 See, for example Vit. Aud. 12, 13, 14; Dado, Elig. 1.13; Pass. Leud. 3. See also James (1983), 46. For further examples, see Graus (1965), 368–7. 387 Fred. 4.53. Cf. Halsall (2003, Warfare), 141. 388 Cypr., Caes. 1.24. Similar: Greg., Hist. 5.49. 389 Greg., Hist. 6.8. 390 Cf. K. Selle-Hosbach (1974), 143–5. 391 Greg., Hist. 3.36. See also ibid. 4.4, 6.10, 8.26. The bishop Ageric of Verdun reportedly fell ill of sorrow for not having been able to save Guntramn Boso, see ibid. 9.23.

150

chapter four

saved from certain death or violence after they had sought sanctuary in holy premises392 or by being freed from prison.393 Peace, in the sense of rather temporary security and absence of vio­ lence, remained important throughout the period discussed here, even if contemporaries only gradually became aware that a long-term absence of military violence – and with it a more stable and long-lasting peaceable condition – had become unattainable to them. 3.5. Summary Although incomparable to modern warfare, with regard to the degree of cruelty and the geographic scope, late antique and early medieval warfare could result in a large number of casualties. Any involvement in fighting entailed the peril of death, being a more significant threat than a few centuries earlier or later. The cruelties and dangers of a battlefield had certainly been intense enough to mark those who had to go through this violent experience. Beyond this, the likelihood that the non-combatant part of society was spared the perils and agonies warfare entailed was much lower than in the times of the Principate. Not even friendly armies necessarily spared the local population the destruction of their homes, stables, and fields, or the pillage of their aliments and goods. Fading expressions of a continuing desire for peace seem to confirm that warfare had anew become part of contemporaries’ everyday experience. The rather explicit early fifth-century lamentations regarding contemporary devastations soon gave way to only hesitant remarks or even expressions of resignation, which document that peace was not at hand. The subsequent Merovingian sources contain very few explicit mentions of a desire for peace, a fact that cannot be explained by lack of armed conflicts. The commitment of both, the royalty and the clergy, to intercede between conflicting parties and to reduce acts of violence shows that conciliation must have been an impor­ tant issue, a circumstance that likewise points to a general disposition to use force. 392 See, for example Greg., Hist. 9.12; Greg., Jul. 5. Cf. Conc. Aur. (511) 1; Conc. Epa. 39; Conc. Aur. (538) 14 ; Conc. Aur. (541) 24; Concilum incerti loci post a. 614, 9, in: MGH LL 3.1, p. 194; Capit. 3.14–15, 6. Cf. James (1983), 44. 393 See for example Greg., Hist. 5.8, 10.6; Greg., Patr. 8.7; Greg., Conf. 86; Greg., Virt. 2.35; Fort., Rad. 25; Fort., Alb. 9, 16; Fort., Germ. 178–181; Jon., Col. 1.34; Dado, Elig. 1.18, 2.15. Cf. James (1983), 34.



perceiving the world of war151 4. Conclusion

This chapter shows that war had become an important constituent of the late antique and early medieval world in western Europe. In the fifth cen­ tury, peace ceased to be a long-lasting condition people could rely on. To the contrary, many had to live with the potential to be affected by the violence a military campaign could entail at almost any moment, regard­ less of the region they settled in. Nevertheless, warfare and peace were not discussed in the sources as prominently as one would expect in con­ sideration of contemporary history. From the fourth century onward, and especially since the sixth century, Christian ideas and values became omnipresent in the sources. They became a decisive criterion by which to evaluate warfare and those who fought. This Christianisation of the world of thought as explicitly documented by contemporary authors was strong enough that the membership of an author in the clergy or the secular part of society had an insignificant impact on the different ways in which the waging of war and those who fought were depicted. A major influence was only exercised by their respective aims. The por­ traits Venantius Fortunatus drew differed from those found in the works of Gregory of Tours, not least because the former intended to flatter his addressees, whereas the latter primarily intended to provide good and bad paradigms. An apparently less erudite secular world of thought is perceptible, nevertheless, on rare occasions. It can be distinguished by inconspicuous details like a stronger interest in secular subjects such as a particular concern for the male body and physical abilities, or stories including strong and/or wild animals. The following chapter attempts reconstructing this secular world of thought with regard to those who fought and the significance attributed to the world of war.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE MILITARY AND THE WORLD OF THOUGHT The previous investigation was mainly concerned with the significance attributed to warfare and the contemporary characterisation of those who fought in the fifth to seventh centuries, based on the written testi­ mony mostly set up by men of the Church. It has already been mentioned that the sources only provide very limited insight into the contemporary world of thought of those who did not belong to the clergy. The difficulties in studying ideas and ideals that characterised the combatant part of soci­ ety, in particular, are increased by the fact that those who wrote never intended to provide an accurate picture of reality. For this reason, the fol­ lowing chapter investigates the world of thought of those who fought by focusing on more general perceptions and conceptions related to the world of war, as they can be extracted from both the written and material remains. The study includes male identities related to their participation in military violence, the significance attributed to and the repercussions that emanated from this function, the assessment connected to this acti­ vity, the roles attributed to and expected from the different groups of secular males, and the role of the Church in the context of their lives and occupations. 1. Self-Assessment and Presentation The world of thought of every human being is first of all characterised by his immediate surroundings, the things he takes for granted, and what he identifies himself with. In the middle of all these peripherals stands his own person, his identity that characterises and defines the scope of his points of view. The aim of the following section is to assess possible forms of identity that might have characterised those who fought. 1.1. A new Terminology Until the late fifth century, the sources allow distinguishing compara­ tively easily between the part of society which fought and the part which did not by the terminology used to refer to these two groups.

154

chapter five

This definite concept of the military derives from the fact that in Roman times, as established above, the state authority maintained a professional army that, at least theoretically, held the monopoly on production and possession of weapons. In the late fifth century, west­ ern Europe ceased to be protected by a state-run army, which meant that military bodies were now mainly recruited straight from the local population. The transition from a state-run military to a society where the main military functions were assumed by the male members of the local population is best documented by an early-fifth-century regula­ tion of the Theodosian Code. It decreed that third parties occupying tracts of land or fortifications that had been formerly granted to bar­ barians, in return for safeguarding the Roman frontiers, should either fulfil the same function or transfer the location to other barbarians or veterans.1 Although this stipulation was addressed to the Vicar of Africa, comparable scenarios are most likely to have been seen in Gaul. After the breakdown of the ancient Roman military structures in the West, soldiers ceased to be centrally organised, trained, and settled as a group in camps primarily set up in the border regions and at some distance from the civil population. More than in Roman times, those who fought lived together with and in conditions reflecting those of the rest of the local population. A comparable evolution is unthinkable without repercussions on contemporary ideas associated with the mili­ tary, including first and foremost the identity which society attributed to its members. The terminology used to refer to those who fought strongly suggests that these alterations were accompanied by a transformation of the iden­ tity attributed to military men. The term miles had been continuously used since early Roman times and until the fall of the western Roman army in the late fifth century to refer to them and clearly distinguished between those who fought and the non-combatant part of society.2 It is 1 Terrarum spatia, quae gentilibus propter munitionemque limites atque fossati antiquorum humana fuerant provisione concessa, quoniam conperimus aliquos retinere, si eorum cupiditate vel desiderio retinentur, circa curam fossati tuitionemque limitis studio vel labore noverint serviendum ut illi, quos huic operi antiquitas deputarat. Alioquin sciant haec spatia vel ad gentiles, si potuerint inveniri, vel certe ad veteranos esse non inmerito transferenda, ut hac provisione servata fossati limitisque nulla in parte timoris esse possit suspicio. CTh. VII 15.1, pp. 341–2. The continuous occupation of military camps in the fifth century is also confirmed by archaeological evidence; see Böhme (1998), 52–3. 2 See, for example Ergo immite fremens coniuncto robore miles naturae certare parat. Merob., Paneg. 2, ll. 164–5, p. 67; Aetius Gaudento comitis a militibus in Galliis occisi filius



the military and the world of thought155

very significant that this noun is virtually absent in Merovingian sources as a reference to contemporary military men.3 This does not mean that it is nonexistent. There are five usages found for the term miles. It was occa­ sionally used to refer to contemporary armed men, although excluding men who reportedly took part in military undertakings. The term was also exclusively used as an appellation for men who had been assigned some responsibility in the supervision, transport, and/or execution of prisoners.4 This suggests that the term miles had become a well-defined denomination to refer to the bearers of this clearly framed function when referring to an inhabitant of the Merovingian realm.5 The addenda of the Salian Law contain a singular mention of the term militunia, possibly referring to the wife of a contemporary miles,6 associated in the addenda of the Capitularies with the half-free laeti.7 If the assump­ tion of such a link between the militunia and the miles is correct, the cum Chunis Iohanni opem laturus Italiam ingreditur. Chron. 452, a. 425, p. 658; or nil prece, nil pretio, nil milite fractus agebat/ Aetius. Sid., Carm. 7, ll. 299–300, p. 210. See also S. James (1999) underlining that “‘the soldier’ (milites) formed a major, well-defined identity-group which constituted a recognised and self-aware empire-wide ‘imagined community’.” (p. 14). 3 In opposition to the above, B.S. Bachrach (1972) assumes “that the milites in Merovingian Gaul were descendants of imperial milites in title, vocation, and blood” (p. 80), and were serving under a tribunes. Not even the barbarian laws use this term to refer to men that were unambiguously part of a military body, see Si quis hominem in oste interfecerit, triplice weregeldum culpabilis iudicetur. Lex Rib. 66.1, p. 118. 4 See for example Cumque milites cum aequitibus praecedentes, cum post terga traherent vinctum, ad locum ubi beati confessoris artus quieverant, pervenerunt. Greg., Patr. 7.4, p. 689; Dehinc, illis ereptis, tribunus civitatis saevire coepit in milites, deputans eorum fuisse neglegentia, quod viro sanctissimo deputatur ad gloriam. […] Clavis habens in manibus, cum tribunus de ereptis vix credet, quod videret, agnoscens se sic custodisse similiter sicut et miles carcerem, data vicissim veniam, culpa transit in gratiam. Fort., Germ. 180–1, p. 25. Similar Greg., Patr. 4.3; Greg., Virt. 1.21; Greg., Conf. 99; Fort., Alb. 12; Jon., Col. 1.19, 1.20; Dado, Elig. 2.15. This observation has already been made by M. Weidemann (1982, p, 269, fn. 58) in regards to the writings of Gregory of Tours. Greg., Hist. 5.48 contains the only mention of the word miles that is not clearly linked to men supervising prisoners. It is used in the context of the civitas of Tours, but without mentioning any military action. It seems very likely that the word here too refers to the same group of agents. Cf. also G. Waitz (1844), 162, fn. 2. 5 The latest recorded quote where the term is used in a more classical sense to refer to contemporary secular men from Gaul can be found in the Life of Caesarius of Arles com­ posed in the earlier sixth century. However, the author apparently preferred not to use the term miles but to speak of militantes. See Egrediebantur comites civitatis vel reliqui militantes et non permittebant homines domus ipsius laborare, sed nimia eos caede mactabant, qua feros prohiberent. Cypr., Caes. 1.48, p. 475. 6 See Von Olberg (1991), 164; Bachrach (1972), 80. 7 Haec lex de militunias uel letas romanas in medietate conuenit observare. Lex Sal. Add. [III] 104.9, p. 261.

156

chapter five

association between the miles and the laeti might help explaining why the term miles ceased to be used to refer to those who fought. Although the radical milit* primarily included the idea of ‘fighting’, as implied in the related verb militare,8 it might have been gradually associated with the commitment to the imperial authority any enrolment implied and to which the term militia could refer.9 A subsequent section will show that personal freedom of action became increasingly important since the late fifth century. It does not seem improbable that in the course of the fifth century the coercion associated with the role of a soldier was increasingly associated with absence of personal freedom and thus gained the conno­ tation of bondage.10 It is neither totally unlikely11 that the Merovingian custodian of prisoners referred to by the term miles was only a half-free agent – even if this raises the question of how this same term could regain a much more positive connotation in the course of the subsequent centu­ ries.12 Did the idea of commitment associated with the military in the 8 See, for example hinc Vandalus hostis/ urget et in nostrum numerosa classe quotannis/ militat excidium. Sid., Carm. 2, ll. 349–51, p. 182; Et qui in castra Christi militare non potuit, cum adversariis saecularem armam arripuit. Pass. Leud. 18, p. 229. 9 The idea of a commitment can be found in the term militia used, for example, to refer to the militia civilis, opposed to the militia armata, see Scharff (2004, 484); Fehr (1999, 110), or to refer to the struggles of the men of the Church as militia spiritualis or militia Deo, opposed to the militia saecularis, see Brennecke (1997, 72). See also militia clericali, Sid. Epist. IV 4.1, p. 58; saeculi militia, Greg., Hist. 7.1, p. 323; militia Christi, Fort., Marc. 15, 51; militiae angelicae coram, Fort., Mart. 1, l. 304, p. 306; saeculari militia, Vita Ept. 1, p. 398; saeculi militia, Vit. Aud. 3, p. 555. See also the explanation suggested in Gaffiot (1934, 976) of the verb militare. 10 In opposition to this, R. Alston (1998) assesses, by referring to fourth century Egypt, that “[s]oldiers’ letters preserved on papyrus do not appear to show any consciousness that military service was a loss of independence and therefore posed a threat to the auton­ omy and masculinity of the recruit. […] Soldiers themselves appear to have been proud of their status”, by adding that “[m]ilitary service was for these men a self-defining role. Service differentiated them from barbarians. It made them men.” (p. 218). A comparable pride associated to the status as miles is attested by a very rare and possibly slightly earlier funeral inscription from the Danubian region that is explicitly dedicated to a Frankish soldier whom the following statement is attributed: Francus ego cives, Romanus miles in armis,/ egregia virtute tuli belo mea dextera sem[p]er. CIL 3576. See Rigsby (1999), 175–6, with further references and a short comment. 11 An inferior or even dependant social status is also suggested by the decreasing enu­ meration in the addenda of the Capitularies: Aut Romanum ingenuum uel tributarium aut militem, solidos c culpabilis iudicetur. Capit. Add. 78.1, p. 263. 12 The assumption that the term miles refers to half-free agents matches very badly with the fact that, in the course of the later Middle Ages, this term foremost referred to armed men belonging to the highest social stratum, see Fleckenstein (1981), 92–3. See, however LHF 7, quoted beneath. A possible explanation would be that this term was reused in reference to the miles Christi only after the term miles had ceased once more to be in use as a denomination referring to custodians of prisoners. In the tenth century, the term miles was used to refer to a new type of bond to a higher lord, which was not



the military and the world of thought157

course of late Antiquity, and with it the term miles, entail that this term was soon preferentially used to refer to men with a rather unappreciated function, such as guarding prisoners? Unfortunately, the sources do not provide further evidence in this regard and thus fail to offer a definitive conclusion. The question of why the meaning attributed to the term miles appar­ ently changed so significantly becomes even more difficult due to the fact that the same word was contemporaneously used with its classical signifi­ cance, but excluding references to living secular men from Merovingian Gaul. It can also be found, for example, quite frequently to refer to a saint by calling him a spiritual soldier, as in the expression miles Christi (‘soldier of Christ’),13 or to refer to the ‘soldier’ more generally, i.e., without refer­ ring to contemporary military men, as when Venantius Fortunatus compared his friend Gregory to a soldier.14 Most significant, however, are scattered examples where the word miles was used with its classical meaning to refer to army members of contemporary eastern Roman and south-western Roman armies,15 or where it was used to refer to Roman soldiers from the pre-Merovingian period, as when Fredegar referred to soldiers who once guarded Jesus Christ.16 These references docu­ ment that the classical significance of the term miles was still known to Merovingian authors. They also imply that a shift in the word’s meaning does not suffice to explain why contemporaries ceased to use it to refer to associated to any negative connotation: the vassal. See Erkens (1994), 628–30, underlining that “[dabei] spielte [..] sicherlich ebenfalls der Umstand eine Rolle, dass zu dem vielfälti­ gen Sinngehalt dieses Begriffes auch der des Dienstes gehört” (p. 630). 13 See, for example milite Christi. Fort., Carm. 3.15, l. 25, p. 69; miles Christi […] milites Christi, Vit. Aud. 6, p. 557; miles Christi, Vit. Desid. 8, p. 640. Similar expressions are miles Domini, Pass. Paei. 31, p. 243; miles Dominicus, Vit. Desid. 6, p. 632. See also, for example, fortes milites pugnarent pro Christo. Fort., Pat. 17, p. 34. The term miles was most frequently used by itself to refer to holy men, for example in Dominum suum militem informauit, Vit. Aud. 3, p. 555. 14 […] ille ubi dux residet miles habebis opem. Fort., Carm. 8.20, l. 4,. p. 200. See also miles ad arma celer, signum mox tinnit in aures. Ibid. II 9, l. 43, p. 38; miles ad arma venit quaerens per vulnera palmam/ ut redeat victor, miles ad arma venit, ibid. III 30, ll. 15–16, p. 77; atque coronatus digna mercede laborum/ obtineat mile regis in arce locum, ibid. V 3, ll. 43–4, p. 107; cum hoc habeat obtiu aequale tam miles quam princeps: pariter dolendum est quod habes commune cum mundo, ibid. X 2.12, p. 231; Longinus miles. Pass. Praei. 31, p. 243. 15 Superest, ut praefatus, miles vester, cuius proles et illic gratiae vestrae porrigitur. Avit., Epist. 47, p. 77. On the likely identity of the recipient Vitalinus, see Shanzer/Wood (2002), 134 and 138, fn. 5. See also Fred. 2.52, 2.62, 4.66. 16 […] tonica domini nostri Iesu Christi, qui eidem in passionem sublata est et a militibus, qui eum custodebant, est sortita. Fred. 4.10, p. 126. See also ibid. 2.16, 2.37, 2.60. See also the Liber Historiae Francorum, calling Aegidius a militem istum imperatoris superbum atque elatum. LHF 7, p. 249.

158

chapter five

those who fought in Gaul, as it seems most unlikely that Merovingian writers used the term miles in a completely different sense only to refer to the situation inside their own world. The fact that the classical use of the word miles is still known to and properly used by early medieval authors rather suggests that they deliberately chose not to use it to refer to their own contemporary military men. Perhaps it was less the meaning of the word miles that had changed than the contemporary idea of those who fought, entailing that in the sixth century it ceased to coincide with the concept conveyed by this term. The connotation that might have impeded the use of this term to refer to contemporary military men may be deduced by a comparison of the ideas associated with the term where it was still used. The spiritual fighter in the service of God or Christ and the common soldier serving the state that recruited him were both defined by the same idea of commitment. This same connotation might also have been associated with the function of the Merovingian custodians referred to as miles. If this assumption is right, this connotation of ‘bondage’ apparently associated in the course of late Antiquity with the term miles appears to have been increasingly regarded as unfavourable up to the point that it became irreconcilable with the contemporary ideas on current military men.17 In opposition to Roman soldiers, they had ceased to be bound to an institutionalised mili­ tary organisation, a new circumstance that might have been associated with personal freedom – although the sources contain no evidence in this regard. This would explain why the term miles disappeared in north-west­ ern Europe concurrently with the collapse of the Roman army. The con­ notation of commitment, nevertheless, still appeared appropriate to refer to the saints serving God or regular soldiers bound to an institutionalised military organisation, as in the case of the Byzantine military. These are deductions, however, that are not backed by further evidence. Moreover, even if these assumptions were correct, it should be noted that the sources contain no conclusive evidence proving that the Merovingian miles was indeed an un-free or half-free agent, nor do they contain any hint as to the exact nature of a possible bondage that might have characterised his sta­ tus and that would thus explain why contemporary authors still used this 17 See the negative connotation contained in the term miles in the Liber Historiae Francorum, which used this word to contrast the positive picture associated with the Frankish regulus Childeric to the negative depiction of Aegidius, almost called thereby a lackey of the emperor, by using this term to quote an appeal made to Childeric’s populace: Vos vero eiecistis regem vestrum utilem et sapientem et elevastis super vos militem istum imperatoris superbum atque elatum. LHF 7, p. 249.



the military and the world of thought159

term to refer to him. The sources, nevertheless, do contain enough evi­ dence to act on the assumption that, for some reason, the term miles had never been used to refer to Merovingian military men. The variety of words used in the sixth and seventh centuries sources to refer to native and contemporary military men instead suggests that there was no need felt to find a clear terminology encompassing the fighting part of society collectively. The words found to refer to armed men can be grouped into three main categories: vague and mainly unspecific appella­ tions, specific denominations that apparently only referred to a restricted group inside the fighting portion of society, and appellations that refer to men as warriors. The first category includes a wide variety of terms that refer more or less specifically to men in general, but not exclusively to military men. It includes words like vir18 or homo,19 as well as terms like puer,20 socius,21 satelle,22 amicus,23 or even sui24 used for instance to refer to armed retinues. Only the context aids in determining whether the mentioned individual or group had a military status or function. The sec­ ond category includes words that primarily refer to functions implying the use of weapons or at least the bearer’s armament. Their restriction to a specific group of military men, however, implies that these terms nei­ ther represent some kind of synonym of the classical meaning of the word miles. It includes designations already mentioned in the context of the Merovingian military, like antrustio25 or qui in truste dominica fuerit,26 referring to the armed retinue of the king, alongside the usual truste27 and the centena.28 The two last terms apparently refer to some sort of policeservice, although no connection can be drawn between them and the cus­ todians referred to by the term miles. The same category likewise includes terms where the exact function that it referred to cannot be determined more specifically. It includes the contubernia29 only mentioned in the

18 See, for example Greg., Hist. 6.4, 6.11, 7.9, 7.29. 19 See, for example ibid. 4.45, 9.9, 10.5. 20 See, for example ibid. 2.2, 5.14, 5.49, 7.23, 7.29, 10.5. Cf. Lex Sal. 13.7. 21 See, for example Greg., Hist. 5.49, 6.17, 8.26, 10.2, 10.4, 10.5. 22 See, for example ibid. 6.11, 7.29, 7.38, 8.26; Greg., Mart. 60; Greg., Iul. 2.16. 23 See, for example Greg., Hist. 6.26, 7.47. 24 See, for example ibid. 3.14, 8.31. 25 Marc., Form. 1.18. 26 Lex Sal. 41.5, 42.1–2, 63.2. The term leud/leod might refer to the same or to a compa­ rable group, cf. Greg., Hist 2.42, 3.23, 8.9, 9.20. 27 Capit. 2.9, 12.6. Cf. Von Olberg (1991), 132. 28 Lex Sal. 44.1, 44.2; see also Capit. 2.9, 2.16, 7.9, 7.11, 7.12. 29 Lex Sal. 14.6, 14.8, 42.1–3, 43.1, 43.3.

160

chapter five

barbarian laws, as well as the more clearly definable custodes/costodes30 used, for example, to guard local churches. As the functions of royal offi­ cers like the comes, dux, or patricius included the leading of an army, they can be included as a third subgroup in this same category. The sources, nevertheless, do contain a third category of words specifi­ cally and apparently exclusively referring to military men. Among them are terms like armatus31 or armiger32 defining a secular man by referring to his current armament. In the course of the late sixth and especially the seventh centuries, contemporary authors apparently preferred to use terms that referred to a man’s function as a fighter. They include terms like (vir) belliger,33 or (vir) bellator,34 both referring to war (bellum), or the designations proeliator35 or pugnator,36 both referring to the fight (Lat. proelium or pugna). Although they were comparatively infrequent, they convey a significantly altered idea of those who fought. They ceased to be called ‘soldiers’ by referring to their enrolment in an institutionalised army to characterise them as ‘warriors’ now by referring to their function as fighters.37 The existence of a terminology used specifically to refer to those who fought thus documents that the concept of ‘fighter’ must have existed in the minds of contemporary authors, even if they only infre­ quently used related terms. It is also noteworthy that the terms belonging to this third category consistently comprehend a positive connotation that points to a positive valuation of this function. The early medieval terminology used by Merovingian authors to refer to those who fought thus seems to confirm that the structural transforma­ tion of the Western world outlined in the previous chapters had signifi­ cant repercussions on the ways contemporaries perceived both men in general and the military more specifically. Furthermore, the fact that the majority of obviously armed men were not referred to specifically as com­ batant suggests that contemporaries, for some reason, generally did not 30 Greg., Hist 1.21, 2.7, 2.13, 3.32, 4.12, 4.13, 5.3, 5.49, 6.36, 7.18, 8.12, 8.30, 8.31, 8.40, 10.15.  31 Ibid. 2.2, 3.7, 3.35, 4.42, 5.18, 5.24, 6.11, 6.43, 7.18, 7.47, 8.29, 8.32, 9.12; Fort., Carm. 6.5; Fred. 2.57, 2.58, 2.62, 4.51. 32 LHF 41. Cf. Pass. Praei. 6, using the word armiger as a synonym to the term miles (Christi) to refer to saint Praeiectus. Cf. Scharff (2004), 481. 33 Fort., Carm. 9.1, l. 102; 9.5, l. 5. Cf. ibid. 3.9, l. 86; 4.4, l. 12; Fort., Sev. 5; Fort., Germ. 47, using the term belliger/ator in the context of and as a synonym of miles (Christi). 34 Fred. 2.57; LHF 1. 35 Greg., Hist 2.27; Fort. 2.53; Vit. Land. 14. 36 Greg., Hist. 2.12; Fred. 2.53, 2.57, 2.62, 3.12, 4.55, 4.87; LHF 7, 10. 37 This does not mean that these terms were unknown to previous authors, see, for example bellatoribus viris in Prosp., Chron. a. 451; armatus in Sid., Epist. III 1.6, IV 20.



the military and the world of thought161

consider it important to specify whether a man was armed or acted as a fighter. A man’s armament probably was mostly taken for granted. As shown in the section on Merovingian society in chapter two, the com­ monness of bearing arms is well documented in the works of Gregory of Tours. It sufficed thus to refer to these individuals as men by using terms like viri or homini, or by referring more specifically to a significant relation that characterised them in a specific situation by using denominations like satelle or amicus. The same lack of an explicit reference to a military function characterised the second group of terms used to label a more restricted group of people. They denote an individual by referring to a more specific function that only implicitly included his armament, as it is the case of the antrustio or custos. The implicitness of male armament contained in these denotations only becomes explicit in the third group of terms. This group comprehends several words apparently used to refer to a same group of people. However, they do not allow to easily distin­ guish those who fought from other secular men, as it had been the case with the Roman use of the term miles. The terminology that appears in the Merovingian sources thus implies that differentiating between those who fought and the rest of secular men had become less important, and possibly less easy, even for contemporaries. This would confirm the assumption raised in chapter two that in Merovingian times every man able to participate in warfare was a potential military man. Beyond this, the comparably rare specific terminology documents that the views of those who fought had significantly changed. The concept of the (Roman) ‘soldier’ had shifted towards what could be called a (Merovingian) ‘war­ rior’, now being attributed (once more) a comparably positive connota­ tion. Considering the altered concept of those who fought and the slow nature of comparable ideative transformations, it seems likely that this process had taken place concurrently and subsequently to the disintegra­ tion of the Roman army in the late fifth century, even if it is only recorded after that century. 1.2. Changing Military Identities The earliest row-graves containing weapons spread in northern Gaul approximately one century before the terminological shift assessed in the previous section. Although it would be wrong to assume that these furnished graves represented a true picture of the entire society that erected them, they certainly do reflect ideas shared by a large number of contemporaries, including how they perceived society and those who

162

chapter five

lived in it.38 These burials document, for example, that in the course of the fifth century contemporaries apparently required new ceremonies to take leave of those who passed away. As mentioned above, the new rituals that subsequently emerged included that a significant proportion of men were buried with weapons,39 though the finding of weaponry in a grave does not necessarily imply that the deceased had been part of the military or that he had fought battles during his lifetime.40 What these findings do indicate is, nevertheless, that for some reason people considered it rea­ sonable or even necessary to bury their dead with military equipment. This points to a growing requirement to associate these men with wea­ ponry, and almost inevitably implies that the society that carried out these burials attributed a positive connotation to armament,41 which could further imply a favourable opinion of elements like warlike values, behaviour, or military engagement.42 This custom thus conveys a connec­ tion between a man and his function as a fighter, similar to the one con­ tained in the third group of Merovingian terminology assessed above and used to refer to those who fought. The burial evidence thus provides fur­ ther indications that men were increasingly identified with their poten­ tial function as a fighter. Beyond this, the observation that weapons were apparently freely deposed in burials attests that until the fifth century, at the latest,43 the 38 Cf. H. Steuer (1979), underlining that “Bestattungen sind daher ebenfalls reale Abbilder, nicht der Gesellschaft selbst, sondern der Vorstellung dieser Gesellschaft von sich selbst” (p. 599). Cf. B. Effros (2003, Mortuary) assuming that “the deposition of grave goods did not necessarily reflect an individual’s achieved status“(p. 124). See also Hadley/ Moore (1999), 24–7. 39 Halsall (1998), 31. This does not mean that weapons are completely absent in female burials, see Hadley/Moore (1999), 28. 40 Cf. Effros (2003, Mortuary), 95. 41 Comparably, Halsall (2003, Burial) suggests that “the dominant ideology of sixthcentury Gaul might have valorised the social identity of ‘warrior’, which was probably symbolised by weaponry” (pp. 64–5). 42 Similar Theuws/Alkemade (2000), 454. U. Koch, J. Pauli, and A. Wiezorek (1997), likewise suggest that “[d]er Stolz der Krieger, die auch Funktionsträger waren, zeigte sich bis ins 7. Jahrhundert hinein an den in großer Zahl ins Grab gelegten Waffen” (p. 1009). Referring to pre-Roman society in Gaul, T. Derks and C. Jefferis (1998) also underline that the fact that “warfare was not just a common phenomenon but also connected with cer­ tain values in society is archaeologically visible in the prominent place of weapons in con­ texts which may be referred to as ritual, namely cult places, grave inventories and rivers” (p. 46). P.J. Geary (1996, 83) foremost considers this new burial custom as an indication to the gradual militarisation of early medieval society. 43 Graves containing weapons and military belts dating to the fourth and fifth century are often localised not too far from contemporary military bases: see Böhme (1997), 92. See also Steuer (1968), 24.



the military and the world of thought163

Roman monopoly on weaponry44 had lost its significance in the northwestern parts of Europe. That this military equipment was deposed in graves indicates that it must have been owned, in practice if not in law, by those buried with it or by those who left it there. The burial evidence thus suggests that weapons, at least gradually, ceased to be produced and dis­ tributed by a state authority and became once more the personal posses­ sions of those who used them. This is true regardless of whether the weapons found in a comparable context had initially been deposed there because they were the property of the deceased or whether they were the possessions of people who participated in their burial ceremony. This personal ownership of weaponry by a local population that was soon required to serve as the main body of the royal hosts indicates that this engagement took place at a much more personal level, not least because military men now used their own equipment to go on campaign. The burial evidence thus matches fairly well with the terminological shift assessed above, as both suggest that military men ceased to be regarded as ‘soldiers’, i.e., members enrolled in an institutionalised armed body supposed to participate in military activities on behalf of a nation or state that paid, trained, and fitted them to this purpose, by gradually becoming ‘warriors’, i.e., men obliged to participate in comparable undertakings as a consequence of their membership in their own native society, which requested their participation at their own expense in often vital military confrontations.45 Considering the chronological and geographical distribution of the weapon-graves custom and its spread after the late fourth century in the empire’s north-western border regions – a time and space that was par­ ticularly characterised by the presence of different groups of military men

44 Cf. Demandt (1998), 227; Derks/Jefferis (1998), 45; Halsall (1992, Reihen­ gräberzivilisation), 197. 45 Cf. the assessments made by T. Derks and C. Jefferis (1998) in regards to the earlier Roman times, when soldiers gradually ceased to “derived their identity from military life in particular, but in their self-representation increasingly emphasised their participation on other forms of Roman culture. The ritual deposition of swords and other pieces of mili­ tary equipment come to an end here too. The changes in the identity of the auxiliary forces are seen most clearly in the changing iconography of their gravestones [..]. Whereas in the pre-Flavian period the cavalry and the infantrymen who dies on active duty still appear in military uniform above their burial inscriptions, since the Flavian period scenes of funeral meals, in which the deceased reclines as a Roman togatus, predominate. […] The native iuventus has been transformed here from a ‘warrior’ to a miles or equs, a situation that was to last until the 3rd century. Only the start of the new unrest along the border heralded the return to long-gone traditions.” (p. 54).

164

chapter five

and an increased occurrence of violent encounters46 – it seems natural that this part of Roman society attributed a positive connotation to arma­ ment. Large numbers of soldiers were recruited here from the local popu­ lation that was reproducing itself in fact since the fourth century, since veterans’ sons, as mentioned above, were soon also required to become members of the army. Beyond this, the region was characterised by a strong presence of barbarian settlers likewise willingly enrolled in mili­ tary service.47 Considering the gradual dislocation already mentioned of these soldiers from the Roman military administration throughout the fifth century, it seems conceivable that a growing identification of these men with their function as fighters might even have predated the collapse of the Roman military structures. This border society characterised by a coexistence of both, a military and a civil population, probably already had more in common in the mid-fifth century with the Merovingian than with the (late) Roman world. That this custom did not reach the southern parts of Gaul might be explained by the prevalence of Roman culture there. Moreover, these regions had never been characterised by the same degree of violence or ethnic diversity, both certainly having been major factors in the formation of the singular cultural identity that prevailed in the north. The row-grave-tradition, the disappearance of the classical use of the term miles, and the subsequent adoption of a new terminology are phe­ nomena that apparently refer to the same societal transformation. The burial evidence tends to reflect the initial situation in which a frontier society increasingly owned its weaponry and seemingly tended to attri­ bute a positive connotation to their usage – possibly because this had become a major requirement for their own survival. Its members willingly buried a significant part of their men with armament, a ritual that implies an emphasised identification of the man and his function as a (potential) warrior. The new terminology, on the other hand, reflects a probable out­ come of this initial situation, when this had become characteristic and permanent for the entire Merovingian society. One may thus act on the assumption that in the course of the late fifth and the earlier sixth centu­ ries – at the latest – a new male identity had emerged that was character­ ised by a stronger insistence on a man’s function as fighter by concurrently

46 See Fehr (2008), 96–8; Böhme (1997), 93. Cf. Geary (1996), 14–19 and 82; Whittaker (1993), 284–94. 47 Geary (1996), 18 and 24–5. See also the comments by S. James (1999), 21–5.



the military and the world of thought165

dissociating itself from the coercion that had emerged from a long-term conscription to an institutionalised military institution. 1.3. Framing the Military Elite Furnishing male burials with weapons was not a generalised phenome­ non, as mentioned in a previous chapter, not even in north-western Europe. In late Roman times, only a comparably small number of men were buried with military equipment. According to a calculation by H.W. Böhme, a total of 206 late Roman weapon graves were discovered in northern Gaul prior to 2008. They represent between less than 1% of a conjecturable total and up to 4% of all known burials from this same period.48 Their number, however, rose drastically since the late fifth cen­ tury when, according to an approximate estimation given by F. Siegmund, about half of the male burials contained armament. This percentage might initially have been even higher considering the abundant evidence of grave robbery.49 Nevertheless, as referred to above, more recent studies suggest that the presence of a weapon in a grave, in all likelihood, does not necessarily imply that the deceased had actually fought in a battle during his lifetime. According to D.M. Hadley and J.M. Moore, “weapon burials do not signify actual warriors so much as ‘warrior status’”, whereas “weapons had a symbolic meaning beyond that of their functional role.”50 As mentioned above, this is best illustrated by military equipment found in infant graves, which obviously did not furnish the burials of for­ mer fighters. The importance attributed here to armaments led I. Ottinger to assume that these children belonged to an elite who had a strong identification with their function as fighters and who therefore will­ ingly displayed their military status in the context of their funeral rites.51 Notwithstanding the military equipment contained in the most lavish 48 Böhme (2008), 96–7. 49 F. Siegmund (1997), 700 and 706. At an earlier date, E. James (1979, ), (74–5) suggested that, depending on the cemetery, 8 to 70 % of the burials contained weapons. See also Steuer (1968, 22) estimating that around 50.000 burials had been discovered up the time of his publication. The concentration of armed burials could be exceptionally high in the Merovingian age, as in the case of graves found in Schretzheim (Germany), see Bulitta/ Ebel (2001), 363. 50 Hadley/Moore (1999), 31. Comparably, H.W. Böhme (1974) underlines that “[d]ie Waffenbeigabensitte im spätrömischen Gallien […] scheint vielmehr von neu angekom­ menen Germanen ausgebildet worden zu sein, die erstmals in direkte Berührung mit der römischen Welt kamen und sich ihres Kriegertums und ihres sozialen Status innerhalb des spätantiken Staates bewußt wurden.” (p. 165). Cf. Härke (1990). 51 Ottinger (1974), 405–6. F. Vallet (1997, 712–15) supports the assumption that these burials were erected by something like a military elite. M. Martin (1993) also assumes that

166

chapter five

child burials that primarily relate to the waging of war, most non-adult graves were only furnished with hunting tools like bow and arrow.52 Where the written sources associate children with this armament, they do so almost exclusively in the context of an elitist lifestyle. The letters of Sidonius Apollinaris, for example, contain several mentions of this acti­ vity used for training purposes by children of his own standing.53 It thus does not seem far-fetched to assume that arrows deposed in the graves of non-adults referred to their practice in the use of this weapon, and possi­ bly to their early participation in hunting excursions.54 The sources, how­ ever, also suggest that hunting was mainly an elitist activity. Venantius Fortunatus, for example, associated it with the (future) maior domus Gogo55 and the Merovingian kings.56 A strong link between the hunt and the elite is also suggested by the fact that, according to a story contained in the Histories of Gregory of Tours, at least in the royal forests (Lat. regale silva or silva dominica), hunting was only permitted by the members of the royal family, as the cubicularius Chundo, in all likelihood a member of the elite himself, was reportedly convicted by battle and finally stoned of having killed an aurochs in a forest that belonged to his king.57 For the the weapons in Merovingian graves “jouent le rôle d’un symbole de statut social des défunts” (p. 395). Similar Halsall (1998), 3. J.M. Wallace-Hadrill (1975) already suggested in the context of an infant burial that “what they constitute is the symbolic or ritual equip­ ment of the class into which he was born. He was not a warrior: but a warrior was all that he could have become, or desired to become”, by adding that “[h]e belonged to a heredi­ tary fighting caste” (p. 162). Cf. also Werner (1973), 331. F. Theuws and M. Alkemade (2000) implicitly suggest that this military identification was detached from the idea of ‘soldiery’ by assessing that “the small groups of graves [were] [..] those of the leading families in the region, who gave form in their positing by choosing exceptional sepulchre locations which referred to their ancestors and their capacity to give protection. Men, women, and chil­ dren were buried there with all the material culture that pointed to an elite lifestyle, but not necessarily to their ‘Germanic’ origin or status as soldiers.” (p. 456). 52 Riesch (2002), 72; Siegmund (2000), 297. Arrows as hunting tools were also men­ tioned in Sidonius’ description of the Gothic king Theuderic II, see Sid., Epist. I 2.5. 53 Sid, Epist. III 3.2, IV 4.1. See also Sid., Carm. 2, l. 138. However, it is not possible to define the social position of the quidam Aquilinus nomine, dum venatione cum patre suo in silvas Franciae exerceret, mentioned in Greg., Virt. 1.26, p. 601. See also Gest. Dag. 2. According to F. Theuws (2009), “[h]unting was a favourite leisure-time activity of late Roman aristocrats” (p. 305) and “a source of great prestige” (p. 306). 54 The importance of military training in the context of the education of the children that belonged to the upper social stratum is confirmed, for example, by a rare mention found in Merobaudes’ panegyric on the magister militum Aëtius, see Merob., Paneg. 2, ll. 124–34. Cf. Greg., Hist. 2.8. 55 Fort., Carm. 7.4. Cf. Dumézil (2007), 570; George (1992), 140. 56 Greg., Hist. 4.21, 5.39, 8.6, 8.10, 10.10; Fred. 4.42. Gest. Dag. 1. 57 Greg., Hist. 10.10. Another mention of a ‘royal forest’ can be found in a diploma issued around 644 under the name of Sigibert III: in terra silva Ardenensie […] ipse castra ex alia silva dominica. Dipl. 80, p. 204.



the military and the world of thought167

rest of the Merovingian population, hunting thus was apparently restricted to the common forest that was not in the direct ownership of the royal family.58 This assumption is backed by the fact that the sources do contain references suggesting that non-royals were not strictly prohib­ ited to go hunting. The same author, for example, attributed the following words to the Austrasian dux Guntramn Boso who apparently thereby managed to persuade the prince Merovech to leave his asylum in the church of St Martin in Tours: Why do we stay cooped up here, as if we were too idle or too timid to set foot out of doors? […] We slink about in this church as if we were half-witted. Let us call for our horses! Let us take our hawks and go with our hounds! A ride through the open fields will do us good.59

Although this quote is certainly fictional, it is a valuable indication that, at least in the companionship of a member of the royal family, hunting was permitted for the members of the upper stratum.60 Nevertheless, and although the sources are rather meagre, hunting appears to have been a rather restricted activity that therefore must have been highly valued, not least as it could be associated with an elite status and a man’s proximity to the royal family. Considering the positive valuation of this activity, which in all likelihood remained important as an invaluable practice for the (elite) youth required to practice the use of weapons at an early age, it appears likely that arrows were not infrequently deposed in non-adult burials to refer to the elevated social status of the individual who passed away, as well as his military function.61 58 See Si quis Ribvarius in silva commune seu regis vel alicuius locadem matheriamen vel ligna si[g]nata abstulerit, 15 sol. Culpabilis iudicetur, sicut de venationibus vel de piscationibus, quia non res possessesa, sed de ligno agitur. Lex Rib. 79, pp. 128–9. 59 Ut quid hic quasi signes et timidi resedemus et ut hebetis circa basilicam occulimur? Veniant enim equi nostri, et acceptis accipitribus cum canibus exerceamur venationem spectaculisque patulis iocundemur. Greg., Hist. 5.14, p. 211. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974) 270–1. 60 It is possible that the Merovingian hunt had already a similar significance as in the Carolingian age when, according to J.L. Nelson (1990), it was i. a. “ein Ritus als auch eine physische Zurschaustellung der königlichen Umgebung. An der Königsjagd teilzune­ hmen, symbolisierte gleichsam adligen Stand und die Mitgliedschaft in der politischen Führungsschicht” (p. 136). See also F. Theuws and M. Alkemade (2000) underlining i.a. that “[t]he hunt was an aristocratic activity, but it was not just a exclusively leisure occupation. The hunt is an occasion at which social positions were defined, leadership and courage could be demonstrated” (p. 460). Similar Dobiat (1997), 720. A more strict award of the right to hunt is suggested by the mention of a possibly lower-status Thuringian hunter called Brachio who acted in the service of the royal family: in servitio Sigivaldi quondam ducis venationem exercens. Greg., Patr. 12.2, p. 207. Sigivald was the cousin of king Theuderic, see Greg., Hist. 3.13. 61 This does not mean that this weapon exclusively used by the elite nor that the rela­ tives of people from a lower social stratum would have never deposed the same objects in

168

chapter five

Although it is not possible to establish exact criteria to define some­ thing like a Merovingian nobility,62 the post-Roman terminology used to refer to those who fought allows distinguishing, on a basic level, between potential warriors and members of what could be referred to as a ‘military elite’. A comparable distinction can also be drawn by means of the burial evidence. Both allow distinguishing between a high social stratum characterised by its members’ strong identification with their military function and their proximity to the kings. The usage made of terms like bellator, proeliator, or pugnator, which undeniably associate the desig­ nated individual with the function of a fighter, suggest that contemporary authors exclusively used these to refer to a restricted and distinguished part of society.63 They are documented as a reference to the early Franks64 or their kings,65 or to refer to military men who were either in a ruler’s close surroundings or at least closely associated with a king.66 Beyond this, the term pugnator could be used to designate the followers of the noble Saxon Aeghyna.67 These denominations were used to refer to a spectrum of individuals that is very similar to the one referred to by the term Francus. This word was used to refer to ethnic Franks,68 as well as an the graves of their youngsters to refer to their status as warriors. However, although the sources are most incomplete in regards to the non-elite, it seems noteworthy that the writ­ ten sources most of all mention arrows in relation to members of the elite, for example, relating to Aëtius (Greg., Hist. 2.8), the bishops Salonius and Sagittarius (ibid. 5.20), or the comes Leudast (ibid. 5.48). The few mentions of arrows reportedly used by people that were not explicitly identified as members of the elite all refer to their use in the context of military encounters. See for example Greg., Hist. 2.33, 10.16. It is possible that arrows deposed in graves were associated to a different symbolic depending on the social stand­ ing of the one who had been buried with them. In common burials they might thus fore­ most refer to a military status, whereas arrows found in elite graves primarily referred to hunting activities and to a particular social status, and only through this to military status. 62 See, for example Weidemann (1993), 535–55, with further references. 63 The only exception is the comparably rare word armatus, a word that foremost refers to a man’s current armament, mostly outside any military compaign, and thus not to a permanent function. It can be found to refer to any kind of man that at a certain moment and for any reason carried or made use of a weapon, see, for example Greg., Hist. 2.2, 3.7, 3.35, 4.42, 5.18, 5.20, 5.24, 6.11, 7.47, 8.32, 9.12; Fred. 2.57, 4.51. 64 Fred. 2.4; LHF 1. 65 Greg., Hist. 2.12; Fort., Carm. 9.1, l. 102; 9.5, l. 5; Fred. 3.12; LHF 7. Cf. Cont. 14, 20. 66 Greg., Hist 2.27; Fred. 2.53, 2.57, 4.87; LHF 10, 41. 67 Fred. 4.55. 68 See for example Cypr., Caes. 2.42; Epist. Aus. 42; Greg., Hist. 2.10, 2.18, 2.23, 3.15, 3.36, 4.14, 4.17, 4.35. 4.40, 7.15, 7.29, 7.32, 8.16, 10.2, 10.27; Greg., Conf. 91; Jon., Ved. 5; Fred. 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.9, 2.40, 2.56, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.21, 3.25, 3.26, 4.18, 4.24, 4.34, 4.43, 4.45, 4.48, 4.89, 4.90; Vit. Aud. 4; LHF 45, 47; Vit. Arn. 1; Lex Sal. 14.3, 41.1; Form. Marc. 1.8. See also Goetz (2002, Frankennamens), 143. See also Gerberding (1987), 45 and 167; Schmidt-Wiegand (1972), 246–7.



the military and the world of thought169

ethnic and/or political entity of Franks that cannot be defined more spe­ cifically in practice69 but certainly included members of the Frankish host.70 It can also be found as a reference to men who stood comparably close to the kings and apparently had some importance in the mainte­ nance of their power. The attitude of this last sub-group was character­ ised by a particular confidence and the aptitude to put pressure on their rulers.71 It is most unlikely that this last sub-group included every man of Frankish descent, and certainly not every ‘political’ Frank. It rather appears to have referred to a more elitist group characterised by member­ ship in a higher social stratum. A third appellation for a similar group of people is the term leodes/leudes. Like the words just mentioned, it can be found most frequently in the Histories of Gregory of Tours and the so-called Chronicle of Fredegar, but it also appears in the Frankish laws.72 Like the term Francus, it was used to refer to a group that was charac­terised by a position of power face to the kings73 in whose close surroundings its members apparently stood.74 These leudes were important enough to more than once play a decisive role for a royal pre­tender  aiming at establishing his own power, as in the case of 69 See for example Cypr., Caes. 1.28; Vit. Genov. 34; Vit. Ept. 8; Epist. Aus. 34, 40, 41; Mar., Chron. a. 500, a. 523, a. 555, a. 556, a. 573, a. 574; Greg., Hist. 2.7, 2.9, 2.12, 2.19, 2.27, 2.32, 2.33, 2.35, 2.36, 4.4, 4.17, 5.praef., 5.18. 10.9; Greg., Patr. 4.1; Fort., Rad. 4; Jon., Col. 1.12, 4.48; Jon., Ved. 2; Fred. 2.58, 4.11, 4.15, 4.33, 4.38, 4.68; LHF 40, 42. See also Goetz (2002, Frankennamen), 145. 70 Mar., Chron. a. 574; Greg., Hist. 2.40, 3.6, 3.7, 3.11, 3.13, 4.14, 4.48, 9.25, 9.31, 10.3; Fred. 2.58; LHF 36, 37, 40, 41, 45, 51. 71 Greg., Hist. 2.12, 3.27, 4.14, 4.22, 4.51, 5.14, 5.17, 6.45, 8.31, 9.20, Fred. 3.21, 4.37, 4.40, 4.53, 4.72; LHF 29, 32, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 44, 45, 47, 48, 51, 53; Lex Sal.prologus. Cf. F. Irsigler (1969) assessing that Gregory of Tours used the word Franci only rarely to refer to “alle Franken, sondern meist nur einen kleinen Kreis führender Leute” (p. 253). These groups were nei­ ther strict categories nor exclusive. A specific sentence referring to Franci could refer to more than one of these three groups. It is possible, for example, that many references generally considered to be ethnic denominations at the same time referred to ‘Franks’ as members of this elitist part of society. 72 Capit. 4.2, 4.4. 73 See Fred. 4.27, 4.41, 4.61. 74 See Greg., Hist. 8.9; Fred. 4.1, 4.42, 4.46, 4.53. Cf. G. Von Olberg (1981) assessing that “die leudes als Männer charakterisiert, die im Heer des Königs waren und sich durch eine grössere Königsnähe gegenüber anderen Angehörigen des Heeres auszeichneten” (pp. 102–3); cf. also ibid. 106. The twelve Franci mentioned in Fred. 4.53 may have been part of the leudes mentioned a little bit earlier in the same section. Another section in the same chronicle, however, suggests that at least in the case where a regnum did not dispose of his own king, leudes could also be present at some distance from the ruling king, see Dagobertus cum iam anno septimo regnans maxemam partem patris regnum, ut super memini, adsumpsit, Burgundias ingreditur. Tanta timore ponteficibus et procerebus in regnum Burgundiae consistentibus seo et citeris leudibus adventus Dagoberti concusserat, ut a cunctis esset mirandum. Fred. 4.58, p. 149. Similar ibid. 4.54.

170

chapter five

Theuderic I,75 just as they could be decisive in the context of an usurper’s fall, as in the case of Ragnachar of Cambrai.76 The main difference between the leudes and those designated by the two previous terms is that the leudes reportedly swore an oath to the king.77 This brings them close to the armed truste domenica/antrustiones only mentioned in the barbarian leges, a group that was likewise characterised by its oath offered to a king.78 The same is true of the gens armata who, according to Venantius Fortunatus, had sworn fidelity to the queen Galswinth.79 It is this royal following characterised by the offering of an oath and its signifi­ cance for the establishment and maintenance of royal power that H. Steuer associates with the rings found virtually exclusively attached to particularly sumptuous swords and deposed in lavish burials.80 The present analysis thus suggests that although words like belliger, armiger, Francus, leudes, truste, or gens armata do not represent a consis­ tent terminology defining something like a post-Roman military elite, they all seem to refer to the same or at least a very similar group of people who belonged to a comparable higher social stratum. As already mentioned, this group was characterised by its proximity to the kings, its powerful position in relation to its rulers, and its significance for the establishment and maintenance of royal power. First and foremost, how­ ever, the members of this group were combatants who strongly identified themselves to with their military function.81 Although proximity to the kings is not unequivocally documented by the archaeological records, lavish weapon graves do point to an elite 75 Greg., Hist. 3.23. See also Fred. 4.79, 4.85. The Chronicle of Fredegar mentioned the leudes alongside the Burgundian bishops as significant support of that part of the realm to the establishment of Dagobert I as new king following his father’s death. Fred. 4.56. Cf. Fred. 4.41, 4.76. 76 Greg., Hist. 2.42; LHF 18. The fact that Guntramn and Childebert II thought it neces­ sary to agree in the Treaty of Andelot that no one should lure the leudes of the other king away and looked for regulations that allowed that those leudes who had already disobeyed their king to be pardoned likewise suggests that these men must have been of great impor­ tance to the royal power. See Greg., Hist. 9.20. 77 See Greg., Hist. 9.20. See also Fred. 4.76. 78 Form. Marc. 1.18. Cf. Lex Sal. 41.5, 42.1, 63.1C; Lex Rib. 11.1. Cf. Eckardt (1976), 34–8; Schmidt-Wiegand (1972), 231–2. 79 […] utque fidelis ei sit gens armata, per arma/iurat iure suo, se quoque lege ligat. Fort., Carm. 6.5, ll. 241–2, p. 142. 80 Steuer (1987, Ringschwert), 223–6. See also M. Hardt (2004) suggesting that “Schwerter mit goldblechbeschlagenen Griffen in weniger reich ausgestatteten Gräbern der zweiten Hälfte des 5. und des beginnenden 6. Jahrhunderts deuten eine wie auch immer konstituierte Verbindung ihrer Träger zum Königshof an” (p. 126). 81 These features also characterised royal officers like the duces and comites, men who, in all likelihood, were also part of the gens armata.



the military and the world of thought171

group of society that was characterised by a strong identification with its military functions.82 Furthermore, the connection between hunting tools and non-adult burials assessed above indicates that the former referred to royalty, an association that seems to have had some significance for the definition of a child’s status as a member of this same part of society. Proximity to the kings was probably likewise what the ring-swords found in several lavish burials referred to, if they were really used in the context of a ritual of allegiance comparable to the one documented in regards to the leudes, antrustiones, or the gens armata. Although, from an archaeo­ logical point-of-view, lavish or other elite burials were almost exclusively associated with armoury in the sepulchral evidence found in the border regions, the written evidence shows that one should not exclude that comparable groups existed in regions whose funeral customs did not include the same exposition of material goods, as in the case of burials located ad sanctos inside a church, coffin-burials, or any other ritual that did not necessarily imply the deposition of military attributes. Although neither the weapon-burials nor the mentioned terminology necessarily referred to a homogeneous group,83 those people the terms discussed above referred to certainly had more in common than differ­ ences. The term antrustio, for example, refers to a group that is more clearly defined than the term belliger or the Francus. But although every antrustio would have been called a belliger and may – at least in a political sense – have been a Francus, not every belliger or Francus necessarily was part of the truste domenica.84 This heterogeneity in detail, however, cer­ tainly did not prevent contemporaries from being able to discern this part of society from the rest of the Merovingian population, especially as the membership in this group was, in all likelihood, openly displayed, whether by means of lavish weapons or by other adornments like special belt-sets or brooches.85 The Merovingian military elite, as it could be defined here, 82 H. Steuer (1989) assumes that “the formation and spread of the magnificent burials during and after the Migration Period reflect the creation and spread of a state organiza­ tion based on bodies of warriors” (p. 122). 83 Lack of a comparable special terminology to refer to this is also documented, for example, by the first line of the Edictus Chilperici stating Pertractantes in Dei nomen eum viris magnificentissimis obtimatibus vel antrustionibus et omni populo nostro convenit. Capit. 4.1, p. 8. The aim of this appellation probably was to include the entire (free) popula­ tion of Merovingian Gaul. As the term antrustio defined in all likelihood a group that did not include every person that belonged to the military elite, the rest of them must be included in the term viris magnificentissimis. 84 See figure 4. 85 See Halsall (1992, Reihengräberzivilisation), 205. Cf. G. Halsall (2003, Warfare), underlining that “[s]tatus was ostentatiously displayed in costume and jewellery, and

172

chapter five

was particularly heterogeneous, in view of ethnicity, function, and status – comparable to what C. Wickham assumed more recently.86 This is well reflected in the contemporary terminology, which displays the same flex­ ibility that characterised this rapidly evolving early medieval society. The assumption that post-Roman society had at its head a heteroge­ neous but perceptible military elite implies that the fighting part of

Figure 4. Figure showing common features characterising military men denoted by different terms and compared to archaeological findings. military equipment was often lavishly ornamented” (p. 162). Comparably, B. Effros (2002, Caring) assumes that “bodily adornment represented a particularly important sort of visual expression. It could serve either to reinforce and validate the social order or to chal­ lenge existing conventions” (p. 14). The display of rank by dress is a phenomenon that rose in importance in the Roman Empire since the third century, see Arce (2005), 34–5. When the comes Leudast of Tours, who managed to work his way up to that office from serfdom (see Greg., Hist. 5.48), in domo ecclesiae cum toracibus atque loricis, praecinctus pharetra et contum manu gerens, capite galeato ingrederetur capite galeato ingrederetur, de nullo secures, he may not only have done this because levitate elatus est and de nullo securus, quia omnibus erat adversus (Greg., Hist. 5.48, p. 258), as supposed by Gregory of Tours. Another possibility is that Leudast was proud to have succeeded to leave his servile status and thus liked to demonstrate that he had become part of a more distinguished part of society. 86 Wickham (2005), 178–86. See also tam Franci, Romani, Burgundionis vel reliquas nationis, sub tuo regimine et gubernatione degant et moderentur. Form. Marc. 1.8, p. 48.



the military and the world of thought173

Merovingian society comprised two different groups, the first being this upper stratum characterised by its strong self-identification with its military duties and functions, a group of society where martial values certainly played an important role.87 As the sources primarily mention members of the elite as individuals, it is this group that is best docu­ mented by the written sources. Adjacent to them, however, was a much larger group whose members certainly identified themselves much less with their military function. This second group comprised the (secular) male population, for which the sources use a much more heterogenic set of terms mentioned above, including words like uir or satelle, and other appellations that do not contain an explicit reference to a higher standing or to their function as warriors. Other terms used to refer to this same group include robustiores, inferiores et pauperes88 or expressions like the multitudinem virorum fortium.89 Although, as established in a previous chapter, these men could be called to arms at any moment by a simple royal request, which made them potential warriors, their main occupa­ tions were in all likelihood activities that had nothing to do with the use of weapons. It appears thus very likely that they did not attribute the same significance to their function as warriors as did the members of the mili­ tary elite – even if this function was certainly neither of no relevance to them. A majority of the widely distributed simple armed burials might have belonged to this same group of people.90 These graves were possibly established in imitation of the procedures known from the elite.91 As a final note, considering the fact that it seems almost impossible to assemble the totality of this second group of potential warriors at the same spot on a yearly basis, it appears likely that, if musters were indeed organised annually,92 only the first, certainly much smaller, group was in 87 See also F. Theuws and M. Alkemade (2000) underlining that weapon graves “relate to the development of new ideas concerning the elite lifestyle of a heterogeneous group of aristocrats such as characterised northern Gaul in Late Antiquity. Martial values will have formed an important new element in the elite lifestyle in northern Gaul” (p. 454). 88 Greg., Hist. 10.9. Cf. ibid. 7.35. 89 Ibid. 4.29. 90 These burials may have been most of all, but not necessarily, limited to those catego­ rised as quality class A and B by H. Steuer (2007), 278. Cf. H. Fehr (2008) assuming that “[d]urch wertvolle Grabbeigaben zeichnete sich nicht nur eine Elite aus, sondern weite Teile der Bevölkerung betrieben hierfür erheblichen Aufwand“(p. 67). 91 Cf. Halsall (2007, Migrations), suggesting that in a first phase, “only leading families employed this rite [to furnish burials], to reinforce their status” (p. 351), to only subse­ quently be “employed across the community” (p. 357). 92 See Greg., Hist. 2.27. Cf. Springer (1995). The assumption that the warriors mustered on a more or less regular basis did not include every potential military man but foremost

174

chapter five

all likelihood required to appear. If this is true, the term optimates, used in the decree issued 596 by the young king Childebert II93 after three con­ ventions that took place consecutively every first of March, referred to the military elite, either as a whole or as a selection of the same, thereby com­ posing a group of distinguished men bearing the right to participate in their king’s annual consultation.94 1.4. Summary The present analysis argues that the disappearance of the Roman army had significant repercussions on the identity attributed to those who fought. Subsequent to the gradual collapse of the Roman army structures, they were primarily bound by interpersonal bonds and by their function as (potential) fighters. They thus ceased to be associated with the coer­ cion that the Roman military service entailed for every soldier and were now referred to with an altered terminology, if at all, characterising them as warriors. This altered terminology thus represents an independent tes­ timony of the breakdown of the Roman military structures, and the sub­ sequent reorientation and adaptation to the new situation by those who fought. It is also argued that a comparable connection between a man and his function and status as a (potential) warrior is suggested by the burial evi­ dence from north-west Gaul. This region was inhabited by a unusually heterogeneous society characterised by the coexistence of both Romans men of a higher standing could also help explaining the deportment of the warrior that offended Clovis in Soissons, see Goetz (2010), 46. Cf. K. Werner (1988, 6), foremost refer­ ring in this context to the Roman origin of the Merovingian strategies to distribute booty. Cf. also T. Reuter (1997) underlining that he is “inclined to think that most armies most of the time were not composed of peasant smallholders. There is indeed some evidence for general musters on a regular basis, more than might be supposed, in fact.” (p. 34). 93 See Com in Dei nomine nos omnes Kalendas Martias de quascumque condiciones una cum nostris optimatibus pertractavimus, ad unumquemque noticia volumus pervenire. Cap. 7.praef., p. 15. It is possible this is something like the origin of a “gentil, ethnisch und religiös übergreifende Kriegerkultur” which rose in the course of subsequent centuries. See M. Kleinen (2007), 97. 94 Cf. G. Halsall (1998) underlining that “[t]he right to participate in particular types of violent activity was very important in defining a social group. The military function of the ‘barbarians’ in post-Roman Europe helped to define Frank or Burgundian from GalloRoman […]. This identity was proclaimed by attendance at the assembly of the army. That the army was the de facto assembly of the powerful is recognised by numerous law-codes and by the rituals of victory and triumph. Thus the right to participate in warfare […] was an important marker of social standing.” (p. 30), although I do not agree with the assump­ tion implicitly made here that the function as military men was restricted more in general to a specific part of society.



the military and the world of thought175

and barbarians, a military and civil population. Although further (writ­ ten) evidence is lacking, it seems probable that the positive valuation of armament, emanating from the new conceptions reflected by both the terminological and the burial evidence, emerged here earlier than in the more central regions of the Roman Empire. The third section demonstrates that the post-Roman terminology allows distinguishing between two different groups that together com­ posed the fighting part of post-Roman society. The particularly lavish burials, foremost characterised by their large amount of armament, point to a social stratum that differed more or less distinctively from the rest of the populace. The upper stratum can be differentiated more or less con­ sistently from the fighting populus by both the written and the material evidence. Both suggest that they strongly identified themselves with their function as military and point to a proximity to their kings. This does not mean that this military elite represented the only more exclusive group of Merovingian society. Other elite groups include the well-documented Gallo-Roman senatorial class or the much less well known wealthy land­ holders, which did not necessarily required proximity to the kings to pre­ serve their social status.95 Differentiating these two last groups from the military elite, however, is not easy, especially after the seventh century, when they slowly but gradually converged with the latter, while the elite simultaneously and increasinly detached its power from the influence exercised by the kings. It is important to note in view of the subsequent analysis that the mili­ tary elite is among those groups that are best known by means of the sources, alongside the kings and members of the upper clergy. As the majority of explicit information provided by the sources with regard to those who fought refers to this most warlike part of post-Roman society, it is often problematic to draw conclusions beyond the same or to find out whether the common populace shared these views. This must be kept in mind in the subsequent chapters aiming at analysing the world of thought of those who fought. 2. War and Violence perceived by the Military The aim of the following section is to take a closer look at the waging of war itself and the involvement of those who fought by concentrating on 95 See, for example, the estate of the barbarus mentioned in Greg., Hist. 3.15.

176

chapter five

their own experience. The questions that are central to the subsequent investigation include what kind of experience such an undertaking represented for those who participated in them, how such expeditions were perceived, what reasons could instigate an individual to participate in such an undertaking, and what role the use of violence had for contemporaries. 2.1. Defining ‘Warfare’ (bellum) The coexistence of Roman and barbarian populations in Gaul certainly implied that at least until the fifth century no less than two differing con­ ceptions characterised the contemporary perception of warfare. This does not mean that they remained unchanged throughout the subse­ quent decades and centuries, nor that they necessarily must have both endured. Unfortunately, the sources do not provide any more elaborate explanations of what warfare was according to a secular member of either group, which is why current research must be content with the few defini­ tions provided by men of the Church and the conceptions that lay behind the terminologies they used. The Iberian encyclopedist Isidore of Seville differentiated between just and unjust warfare by referring to ancient Roman conceptions such as those expounded by Cicero. Whether an act was to be considered just or unjust foremost depended on the presence or absence of two criteria: a just cause and a formal declaration. Unjust wars were subdivided into civil and ‘more than civil’, the former being defined as an encounter fought between citizens of a same nation, whereas the latter defined a conflict that even involved large-scale fighting led by members of the same family.96 According to the same author, a war furthermore con­ sisted of four chronologically consecutive elements: battle (pugna), flight (fuga), victory (victoria), and peace (pax).97 Horizontally, a conflict (bellum) was composed of battles (pugna), i.e., the different segments of fight­ ing during a day, while the term pugna could be traced back to the origin 96 Quattuor autem sunt genera bellorum: id est iustum, iniustum civile, et plus quam civile. Iustum bellum est quod ex praedicto geritur de rebus repetitis aut propulsandorum hostium causa. Iniustum bellum est quod de furore, non de legitima ratione initur. […] Civile bellum est inter cives orta seditio et concitati tumultus, […] Plus quam civile bellum est ubi non solum cives certant, sed et cognati; quale actum est inter Caesarem et Pompeium. Isid., Ety. XVIII 1.2–4, p. 76. On Isidore and his encyclopedia, see the introduction in Barney (1912). 97 Quattuor [autem] in bello aguntur: pugna, fuga, victoria, pax. Isid., Ety. XVIII 1.11, p. 78.



the military and the world of thought177

of comparable conflicts fought as fistfights (pugna), and single combats (proelia) fought in the course of a battle.98 Isidore’s contemporary, Virgilius Maro Grammaticus, possibly a native from Aquitaine,99 pro­ vided in his Epitomae more peculiar definitions of the same terms. Similar to Isidore, he differed between war (bellum), combat (proelium), battle (pugnam), and fight (certamen). A battle, according to him, however, was primarily characterised by its duration as indicated by the word-element praelo, whereas the similarity of the word bellum to belsa (field) led him to assume that wars were to be fought on a field. Furthermore, a fight was characterised by the fact that its location was determined in advance (certo loco), whereas proelium was defined as a fight where the partici­ pants (pugulles) were hurling their daggers (pugiones) from both sides.100 Virgilius’ conception of the term bellum, however, is not inconsistent with the one Isidore sketched, as both defined warfare as a large-scale encoun­ ter fought between two major opposing parties. The Germanic idiom must have been most common in late Roman and Merovingian Gaul, whether due to the large numbers of military men sta­ tioned at the frontiers or to the subsequent presence of a barbarian elite. Its vocabulary, as far as it can be reconstructed, however does not contain a synonym for the Roman term bellum to refer to warfare.101 The word that comes closest is werra. This term only gained this specific meaning in the course of the Merovingian Age, at the earliest.102 Even then, this term was not used to refer to large-scale encounters alone, but was used much more flexibly to speak of (armed) discords and conflicts such as those that could arise between any two parties, including discords between individ­ uals. It also included quarrels such as those that could rise in the context of acts of revenge or a revolt.103 The Germanic conception conveyed by 98 Differt autem bellum, pugna et proelium. Nam bellum universum dicitur […]. Huius partes sunt pugnae […]. Rursus in una pugna multa sunt proelia. Aliud enim in cornibus, aliud in media, aliud in extrema acie geritur. Bellum igitur est totum, pugna unius diei, proelium pars pugnae est. Isid., Ety. XVIII 1.8, p. 77. 99 On Virgilius, see the more recent discussion on his identity by Cizek (1995), 127–36, suggesting that he was of Aquitaine origin. 100 Inter ‘bellum’ quoque et ‘praelium’ et ‘pugnam’ et ‘certamen’ non paruam differentiam esse adfirmant; praeilum enim non nisi in praedo, hoc est in pylago, effici potest, quod ideo ‘praelum’ nominatur, quia prae ceteris elimentis quadam sui inmensitate inundando etiam et deundando quendam ammirationis praelatum habet; ‘bellum’ autem non nisi in belsa, hoc est in campo, agitur; ‘belsa’ enim ob hoc dicitur, quia belsa plurima quae sunt gramina profert; ‘certamen’ autem ex certo loco hoc est receptaculo exercitus diruatur; ‘pugna’, in qua pugulles suos utrobique pugiones iectant. Virg., Epit. 4, ll. 197–208, pp. 128–9. 101 Bulitta/Ebel (2001), 337. 102 Stotz (2002), 398. 103 Ibid., 398. Cf. Bulitta/Ebel (2001), 334–7.

178

chapter five

this term thus has significant differences from the Roman concept. In opposition to the Roman concept of war, the Germanic idiom apparently did not differentiate between large-scale conflicts fought between two opposing entities (either internal or external) and discords as they could rise between individuals or small (local) groups. It appears likely that in the course of the decades of coexistence between Romans and (mostly Germanic) barbarians, both conceptions mutually influenced each other. Evidence for a corresponding accultura­ tion of the contemporary concept of warfare, however, is rather scarce. The Histories of Gregory of Tours are the only source that contain several instances of the term bellum used to refer to small-scale armed struggles comparable to those the term werra could have been used to refer to. Although Gregory, just as Isidore after him, did distinguish between exter­ nal and internal warfare – the latter likewise being characterised as bellum civile104 – his work does contain uses of the term bellum to refer to local discords. Alongside frequent references to large-scale warfare, the term bellum is also used, for example, to refer to a revolt instigated by some nuns from the nunnery in Poitiers (who hired a gang of criminals for this purpose),105 to an armed resistance organised by the custodians and servants of an estate threatened by the maior domus Waddo,106 or to refer to personal offences suffered by the bishop Theodore of Marseille.107 Furthermore, Gregory used the term bellum civile to refer to a feud that arose between two inhabitants of the region of Tours.108 The seventh century sources, however, are much less unambiguous. A rare example of the term bellum used to refer to a small-scale conflict can be found in the Chronicle of Fredegar, which uses it to refer to a duel fought between the Goth Theoderic and the Avar Xerxes.109 Most seventh-century sources, 104 Greg., Hist. 3.4, 3.28, 4.23, 4.47, 4.49, 4.50, 5.praef., 10.19. See also Fred. 3.55, 3.82; LHF 25, 47. 105 Pactavum regressi sunt et se infra basilica sancti Helari tutaverunt, congregatis secum furibus, homicidis, adulteris omniumque criminum reis, stabilientes se ad bellum. Greg. Hist. 9.40, p. 466. 106 Quod ille audiens, coniunctis secum hominibus ex domo illa, se ad bellum praeparat. Greg., Hist. 9.35, p. 456. 107 Nova iterum contra Theodorum episcopum bella consurgunt. Greg., Hist. 6.24, p. 291. See also ibid. 7.37. 108 Gravia tunc inter Toronicos cives bella civilia surresxerunt. Greg., Hist. 7.47, p. 366. This first chapter referring to this very well-known feud is entitled De bello civile inter cives Toronicus, MGH SRM 1.1, p. 323. Cf. Bellum vero illud quod inter cives Toronicus superius diximus. Greg., Hist. 9.19, p. 432. 109 Postea Theudericus singulare certamen cum Avari bellum invenit. Fred. 2.57, p. 80. Cf. Isid., Ety. XVIII 1.9.



the military and the world of thought179

however, only use this term to refer to (comparably) large-scale acts of war. Although it seems unlikely that Gregory used an unusual rendering of the term bellum or that the evolution documented by his writings had taken a step back until the seventh century, it is hard to tell whether the reason why the seventh century sources contain very few comparable ref­ erences is lack of evidence or whether the Roman conception in fact had largely survived unchanged until the seventh century, despite the evi­ dence found in Gregory’s works.110 2.2. Taking Part in Armed Conflicts When Isidore of Seville subdivided war (bellum) chronologically into bat­ tle, flight, victory, and peace, he only enumerated elements that belonged, if at all, to a successful campaign. Those who participated in a comparable undertaking would rather have divided such an occurrence into getting prepared for battle, the confrontation with the enemy, single combats fought in the crowd composed of members of both participating parties and, in the case of defeat, flight or conquest or, in case of victory, the col­ lection of bodies and goods from the battlefield and the distribution of booty. Large-scale battles, in particular, which in all likelihood were not fought at all times of the year,111 required preliminary preparations. The scale of comparable prearrangements is testified by the letter Clovis I addressed to his bishops, which testifies that the author supposed that his addressees were already aware of instructions he had previously given to his troops preparing to attack the Goths.112 Although the sources are very meagre, it appears that the procedure mentioned by Isidore to initiate a war by a formal declaration – often a last attempt to seek an unbloody settling of a dispute – had been adopted by the barbarian rulers. A rare 110 Cf. the comments in Leyser (1994), 201. It is also hard to tell whether the fact that the scale of armed violence appears to have gradually reduced until the seventh century, a time when it had almost reached, according to O. Schmitt (2005), the primitive stadium of tribal warfare, had some influence on the general perception of warfare and the terminol­ ogy used to refer to it. 111 Although the evidence is rather scarce concerning the centuries focussed on here, it is most likely that campaigns were preferably undertaken outside wintertime. See Sid., Epist. V 6.1. 112 Enuntiante fama quod actum fuerit vel praeceptum omni exercitui nostro, priusquam in patria Gotorum ingrederemur, beatitudini vestrae praeterire non potuit. Capit. 1, p. 1. Similar Vulgi verba iterantes, quae nos maxime terrent, vertrae pietati in notitiam deponimus, quae ita disseminat […], quasi vestro voto, consilio et instigatione domnus gloriosissimus Sigibertus rex tam ardua hanc vellit perdere regionem. Epist. Aus. 9, p. 123.

180

chapter five

case is mentioned in Gregory’s Histories reporting that the brothers Charibert and Guntramn sent messengers to their half-brother Chramn asking him to either restore their father’s possessions or prepare for bat­ tle.113 A comparable procedure is also documented by the Chronicle of Fredegar reporting that Theuderic II sent a legation to Chlothar II to inform him of his intention to wage war against his brother Theudebert II.114 When war seemed inevitable, both parties could agree to meet on a pre-defined battlefield.115 Before being able to face the enemy, a sufficently large number of armed men able to make use of their weapons had to be assembled in order to compose a host with the potential to defeat the expected enemy. This call for armed men was generally made according to established procedures or customs, as when King Sigibert advised his duces to call together an army composed of local men and summoned the dependent tribes from across the Rhine.116 The fact that in 451, according the Chronicle of Prosper of Aquitaine, Aëtius had been able to hastily collect large num­ bers of armed men willing to face the invading Huns117 suggests, neverthe­ less, that armies were occasionally gathered more spontaneously. For those who were required to participate in such an undertaking, this con­ vocation in large numbers was certainly an important experience. As in the case of the tribes just mentioned from across the Rhine that convened to fight in Gaul,118 large campaigns required that a majority of those called to arms had to travel long distances before being able to join their host. The archaeological evidence suggests that these journeys were not neces­ sarily undertaken by those required to participate in an armed encounter alone; they could be followed by at least some of their relatives, including women and children.119 Such travels were a challenge by themselves and could include difficulties such as the crossing of large rivers like the Seine 113 Chariberthum et Gunthramnum […] mittentes legationem, ut res paternas, quas male pervaserat, reddere deberet; sin autem aliut, campum praepararet ad bellum. Greg., Hist, 4.16, pp, 148–9. See also ibid. 4.42. For further mentions of the act of declaring war, but made out of context, see Te totum expectat, qui potestatem habes omnia ordinandi, bellum instituendi. Col., Epist. 5.7, p. 44; […] et cum nonnulli iurgia eos vel bella mutuo sibi indicere aestimarent. Dado, Elig. 1.13, p. 680. 114 Theuderici legationem ad Chlothario diregit, indecans se cintra Theudebertum, eo quod suos frater non esset, hostiliter velle adgredere. Fred. 4.37, p. 138. 115 See Quem Siggyberthus insecutus, campum sibi praeparare petiit. Greg., Hist, 4.49, p. 186. See also Pac., Paneg. 10.3. Cf. Bulitta/Ebel (2001), 342. 116 Greg., Hist. 4.49. 117 Prosp., Chron. a. 451. 118 Greg., Hist. 4.49, 4.50. See also ibid. 8.30. 119 See Steuer (2008), 357.



the military and the world of thought181

or the Rhine.120 The journey home after a campaign could be even more wearisome, especially in the case of an injury or general exhaustion. In such a situation, a group was not necessarily capable anymore of per­ suading the local population to provide them the required provisions.121 Although the sources do not give any details on these troop movements and the experience of those who participated in them, it seems likely that in most cases individuals joined in small groups composed of inhabitants of their own settlement or native local region, and travelled together. These small gatherings subsequently might have spontaneously formed tight-knit groups characterised by a higher disposition to provide mutual assistance, a circumstance in the context of which a team spirit might have developed that could have been vital to the survival of the individu­ als concerned when finally involved in fighting.122 Rare mentions of army members getting ready for battle (praeparare ad bellum/pugnam)123 serve as reminders that men expecting to soon have to face an enemy in a man-to-man fight also needed to get them­ selves ready individually for this encounter. Although the sources neither provide any details on these preparations, one may assume that they 120 See Greg., Hist. 4.49; Fred. 4.87. 121 See the case of an armed host heading back from Italy whose members were forced to sell their weapons and clothes to buy food. Greg., Hist. 10.3. 122 Cf. Dixon/Southern (2000) underlining that “[a]lthough cohesion is crucial within the structure of an army, research shows that it is the cohesion which exists within small groups that forms the greatest motivation for the soldier, since ultimately the safety of comrades is more important to the individual soldier than the safety of the army as a whole. The defense of moral principles rarely drives men to perform acts of bravery in war, but they commonly perform them for the life of a friend” (p. 169). See also S. James (1999) speaking of the Roman army putting “the individual into long-term membership of a par­ ticular small, fairly stable, all-male warrior group, his contubernales […] who seem to have formed basically fixed groupings on duty as well, sharing a tent in the field, and perhaps standing together in line of battle. Such small stable sub-groups have been shown to be of central importance to the dynamics of modern soldierly behaviour – especially to the unit cohesiveness vital to success on the battlefield. […] the personal social bonds between men who shared experiences, who knew and often trusted each other intimately, will have formed the basic glue which held the regiment together in peace and war” (p. 17). Regarding the coercion of warriors in the early sixth century, see also Periculosius agitur singulare certamen, in quo vires altrinsecus experiri posse paucorum est. At vero cum contra hostem communem multitudinis pugnat adsensus, trabit etiam timidum milltem virtus aliena. Robustis bellantibus infirmitas delitescit, et quodam unitatis suffragio laus fit invalidis in exercitu fortium computari. Avit., Hom. 6, p. 111. A rare case of mutual assistance can be found in Fredegar describing how a cetain Chaubedo saved his father from imminent dan­ ger. Fred. 4.90. 123 See Saxones exercitum, praeparantes se ad bellum. Greg. Hist. 4.42, p. 179; Illi autem haec neglegentes, praeparantur ad bellum. Ibid. 5.3, p. 196; Illi haec audientes, populo multo Burgundionum movent, ad pugnam preparant. LHF 16, p. 264. Contra que illi hostem collegunt, bellum preparantes accelerant. Ibid. 53, p. 327.

182

chapter five

Figure 5. Silver phalera depicting a victorious equestrian, possibly Christ. The figure is winged and holds his right hand upwards. From harness decoration. Dated around 616. Dim.: 11 cm. Burial finding from Hüfingen, Germany. Location: Badisches Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe, Germany, inv. nr. 73/171 c. Image courtesy of Prof. Dr. Gerhard Fingerlin.

included the maintenance and cleaning of weapons or the dressing in protective clothing, when available. They could also include the donning of amulets to serve as lucky charms during the battle, such as those discovered in large numbers in contemporary burials and showing, for example, an armed horseman.124 Beyond this, many men might have 124 Horsemen were a particularily popular motive, see figures 5, 6 and 9. Cf. W. Holmquist (1939) suggesting that they were considered as “Symbole für Stärke und Sieg […] die Glück und Erfolg für ihren Träger mit sich brachten” (pp. 126–7). See also Seebold (1992), 273.



the military and the world of thought183

prepared themselves mentally, be it through prayer,125 mutual encour­ agement, or even self-reassurance through boasting. In cases where the approximate area of the encounter was known, this circumstance could bear the advantage for the party that arrived first in that it could make further preparations on the field. The Thuringians, for example, reportedly prepared pitfalls to trap the oncoming Franks.126 When the second party reached the area of encounter, both could stand lined up on the field – at least for a short moment – looking at the enemy they soon had to face.127 When the fighting became imminent, a good military leader sought to put his men into the right temper for battle in order to stay motivated until the combats were over.128 The sources con­ tain several speeches that were meant to reproduce those given in front of a host shortly before a battle took place. The main strategy pursued by these leaders was apparently to remind those present of real or imagined atrocities committed by the enemy and to thereby put the audience into a rage that should be helpful to them in battle. Sometime before facing the Thuringians, King Theuderic I, for example, reportedly convoked his men to declare: ‘You have every reason to be furious, […] both because of the injury done to me and for the slaughter of your own relations. Remember that not so long ago these Thuringians made a violent attack upon our people and did them much harm. Hostages were exchanged and our Franks were ready to make peace with them. The Thuringians murdered the hostages in all sorts of dif­ ferent ways. They attacked our fellow-countrymen and stole their posses­ sions. They hung our young men up to the trees by the muscles of their thighs. They put more than two hundred of our young women to death in the most barbarous way: they tied their arms round the necks of their horses, stampeded these animals in all directions by prodding them with goads. and so tore the girls to pieces or else they stretched them out over the 125 Cf. Fidem vestram telis inserite, promissionem divinam promittendo adminete. Avit., Epist. 45, p. 74. 126 Thoringi vero venientibus Francis dolos praeparant. In campum enim, quo certamen agi debebant, fossas effodiunt, quarum ora operta denso cispete planum adsimilant campum. Greg., Hist. 3.7, p. 104. 127 See Cumque moto utrique exercitu cum magno armorum apparatu ad bellum convenissent. Greg., Hist. 4.16, 149; Cumque in unum campum conglobatus uterque resederet exercitus et Chramnus cum Brittanis contra patrem aciem instruxisset. Ibid. 4.20, p. 153. Cf. Willibadus […] colligens secum plurema multitudinem de patriciatus sui termenum, etiam et pontevecis seo nobelis et fortis, quos congrecare potuerat […] Willebadus ae contra tela prilia construens, quoscumque potuit adunare, falangis uterque in congressione certamenes iungent ad prilium. Fred. 4.90, pp. 166–7. 128 See also Ausonius underlining that a good military leader should take care of his men, in times of war, in particular: Aus., Grat. 17.

184

chapter five ruts of their roads, attached their arms and legs to the ground with stakes, and then drove heavily-laden carts over them again and again, until their bones were all broken and their bodies could be thrown out for the dogs and birds to feed on. What is more, Hermanfrid has now broken his promise to me and refuses utterly to do what he said he would. There is no doubt that we have right on our side. With God’s help we must attack them!’129

Figure 6. Round, silver garnet fibula depicting a horseman. Mid sixth century. Dim.: 2.8 cm. Found in Folklingen, dép. Moselle, France. Location: GMII Moskau, inv. nr. Aar 471. Image courtesy of the Pushkin Fine Arts Museum, Moscow. 129 Convocatis igitur Francis, dicit ad eos: ‘Indignamini, quaeso, tam meam iniuriam quam interitum’ parentum vestrorum, ac recolite, Thoringus quondam super parentes nostros violenter advenisse ac multa illis intulisse mala. Qui, datis obsidibus, pacem cum his inire voluerunt, sed ille obsedes ipsus diversis mortibus peremerunt et inruentes super parentes nostros, omnem substantiam abstullerunt, pueros per nervos femorum ad arbores appendentes, puellas amplius ducentas crudeli nece interfecerunt, ita ut, legatis brachiis super equorum cervicibus, ipsique acerrimo moti stimulo per diversa petentes, diversis in partebus



the military and the world of thought185

This incitement did not fail in its objective. His audience is said to have been furious after hearing of the crimes reportedly committed by the Thuringians and all together they agreed to invade their territory.130 Of course, not every battle was as well organised and structured as described until here. When Theuderic II, for example, found out that Chlothar II had devastated some of his territories, he reportedly neglected the current Christmas celebrations to hastily meet his cousin in battle. But although the ford his host had to take to cross the river Louet was so narrow that the fighting had already begun when not more than a third of his men had reached the other shore, the king could prevail and return home victorious.131 Generally speaking, however, the chances were much better to win a battle when strategies and tactics had been coordinated, as documented by the negative example of young Sigibert III’s campaign against the Thuringian dux Radulf.132 The course of events of a battle, in fact, could vary to a large extent and was very much conditioned by the composition of the troops that partici­ pated, the local situation and position of each troop, the talent of the cur­ rent military leader(s), and the temper and skill of their men. As soon as both parties had met, initial individual fears might have faded when men became fighters on the battlefield. In one of his Homilies comparing the struggles of the holy man to the soldier, Avitus of Vienne drew a vivid picture of the group dynamics that might have emerged from this particu­ lar situation: […] when the approval of the multitude fights against the common enemy, the courage of another man drags alone even the timid soldier. When robust feminas diviserunt. Aliis vero super urbitas viarum extensis, sudibusque in terra confixis, plaustra desuper onerata transire fecerunt, confractisque ossibus, canibus avibusque eas in cibaria dederunt. Nunc autem Herminefredus quod mihi pollicitus est fefellit et omnino haec adimplire dissimulat. Ecce! verbum directum habemus: Eamus cum Dei adiuturio contra eos!’ Quod ille audientes et de tanto scelere indignantes, uno animo eademque senentiam Thoringiam petierunt. Theudoricus autem, Chlothacharium fratrem et Theudobertum filium in solatio suo adsumptos, cum exercito abiit. Greg., Hist. 3.7, pp. 103–4. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 167–8. 130 Quod ille audientes et de tanto scelere indignantes, uno animo eademque senentiam Thoringiam petierunt. Greg., Hist. 3.7, p. 104. Comparable speeches are reported of Clovis I before the battle of Vouillé (ibid. 2.37) and the pretender Munderic shortly after realising that he had been deceived (ibid. 3.14). On comparable speeches, see also the comments by Althoff (1993), 48. 131 Fred. 4.26. See also, for example, the surprise attack by men from Orléans and Blois of the citizens of Châteaudun. Greg., Hist. 7.2. 132 Fred. 4.87. See also Guntramn’s campaign against Septimania, Greg., Hist. 8.30, or the unwillingness of the Neustrians to attack Willebald, Fred. 4.90.

186

chapter five warriors fight, infirmly lies hidden, and it becomes an occasion for praise for the week to be reckoned in the army of the strong by a unified vote. When the victory has come it is achieved by all, and even through the night hand of the few has fought, the glory of all has triumphed.133

The success of a large-scale campaign was very much dependent on the coordination and absence of rivalry between the leaders of each army. What could be the negative outcome of a failed co-ordination is docu­ mented by the defeat just mentioned of Chlothar II’s men at the shores of the river Louet, which was foremost a consequence of lack of cooperation between the rival leaders Bertoald and Landeric.134 For an individual, it was most important to be able to distinguish who belonged to the enemy and who did not. The fact that the Frankish king Chlodomer could be killed after some Burgundians imitated his rallying cry to pretend that they were his own men suggests that even among different tribes supple­ mentary signs could be necessary.135 Knowing one’s allies and whom to trust was most vital for an individual, especially in case of a personal assault. When the Burgundian Willebad was attacked, according to the Chronicle of Fredegar, by the Frankish comes palatii Berthar, his associate Manaulf came running to face the assailant. The former, however, soon recognised in the latter an ancient friend, which instigated him to perfidi­ ously offer his protection to Manaulf. As soon as Berthar’s shield was lifted to provide Manaulf the promised protection, he killed the latter with his lance. When the victims’ men on their part attacked Berthar to avenge Manaulf’s death, the former was only saved thanks to the courageous assistance of his son Chaubedo.136 Following the chaos of a battle, it was not always clear who had actually prevailed. Most remarkably, this is the case with the supposed victory137 achieved by Aëtius against Attila at the Catalaunian Plains, a success that is considered by many modern historians as an important turning-point 133 […] cum contra hostem communem multitudinis pugnat adsensus, trabit etiam timidum militem virtus aliena. Robustis bellantibus infirmitas delitescit, et quodam unitatis suffragio laus fit invalidis in exercitu fortium computari. Denique cum victoria contigerit, totis adquiritur: et cum paucorum dextra pugnaverit, omnium gloria triumphavit. Avit., Hom. 6, p. 111. Transl. D. Shanzer and I.N. Wood (2002), 385–6. 134 Fred. 4.26. Cf. ibid. 4.25. See also the disastrous consequences of the rivalry between Ebrachar and Beppolen in Brittany when Multi tamen de hoc exercitu a Gunthchramnum regem accesserunt, dicentes, quia Ebracharius dux ac Wiliacharius comes, accepta pecunia a Waroco, exercitum perire fecissent. Greg., Hist. 10.9, pp. 493–4. 135 Greg., Hist. 3.6. 136 Fred. 4.90. 137 Cf. Stickler (2002) assuming that “der auf den Katalaunischen Feldern errungene Erfolg [war] etwas Großartiges und […] Unvermutetes” (p. 144).



the military and the world of thought187

in fifth-century history.138 The contemporary Prosper of Aquitaine, how­ ever, was not that sure of its outcome, as he considered it necessary to explain why he assumed that Aëtius had prevailed by speculating that: Although the slaughter of all those who died there was incalculable – for neither side gave way – it appears that the Huns were defeated in this battle because those among them that survived lost their taste for fighting and turned back home.139

That a defeat could be considered a dishonour can be deduced from one of Sidonius’ letters to his friend Lampridius reporting that vanquished Franks (or the Salian kings?) used to shave the backs of their heads ritu­ ally as an easily visible sign of defeat.140 That a defeat, nevertheless, was not irrevocable is documented by the fact that the king Sigibert I report­ edly managed to transform the dishonour of a recently experienced fail­ ure to prevail against the Avars into a standoff by his ars donandi, i.e., his art of making presents.141 An undisputable defeat, however, was difficult to accept and could require some further explanation. When Prosper of Aquitaine reported a Roman defeat experienced in 439 against the Goths, he preferred to assign it to the carelessness and thoughtlessness of the the general Litorius.142

138 J. Fündling (2006), for example, recently assumed that “[d]ie Katalaunischen Felder waren damit nur für die Goten ein glorreicher Sieg, da sie den Anfang ihrer Herrschaft in Gallien bedeuteten” (p. 106). 139 In quo conflictu quamvis neutris cedentibus inaestimabiles strages commorientium factae sint, Chunos tamen eo constat victos fuisse, quod amissa proeliandi fiducia qui superfuerant ad propria reverterunt. Prosp., Chron. a. 451, pp. 481–2. Transl. A.C. Murray (2000), 67. Cf. also S. Barnish (1992) underlining in regard to Omnes omnio causae, quae inter Burgundiones habitae sunt, et non sunt finitae usque ad pugnam Mauriacensem, habeantur abolitae. Lex Gund. 17.1, p. 55, that “[f]or the subjects of king Gundobad of Burgundy, the battle of the Catalaunian Plains fifty years before was an event so memorable that it gave them a time-limit on their law suits” (p. 38). For another uncertain outcome of a battle, see for example exercitus Francorum et Brittanorum in invicem proeliantes, uterque nimium gladio tracidantur. Fred. 4.15, p. 127. 140 […] hic tonso occipiti, senex Sygamber,/ postquam victus es, elicis retrorsum/cervicem ad veterem novos capillos. Sid., Epist. VIII 9.5, ll. 28–30, p. 136. 141 […] quos non potuit superare virtute proelii, superavit arte donandi. […] idque ei magis ad laudem quam ad aliquid pertinere opproprium iusta ratione pensatur. Greg., Hist. 4.29, 162. Cf. ibid. 7.24. See Hannig (1988). Cf. Hardt (1998), 276. 142 Litorius […] pugnam cum Gothis inprudenter conseruit decitque intellegi, quantum illa, quae cum eodem periit, manus prodesse potuerit, si potioris consiliis quam sua temeritate uti maluisset, quando tantam ipse hostibus cladem intulit, ut, nisi inconsideranter proelians captivitate, incedisset, dubitandum foret, cui potius parti victoria adsciberetur. Prosp., Chron. a. 439, p. 476. Similar Anno 29. Gunthramni exercitus in Spaniam eiusdem iusso diregitur, sed negligenciam Bosone, qui capud exercitus fuit, graviter a Gotis exercitus ille

188

chapter five

The fate of the surviving members of a defeated army – if they had not saved themselves by a rather dishonourable flight143 – was generally cap­ tivity.144 Before being released, which could happen,145 they were often required to swear an oath of fealty to their victors,146 just as the inhabit­ ants of a conquered territory had to.147 Following their release, they could be forced to make one-time or recurring payments of compensation148 or give proof of their subjugation through tribute.149 Slaughter and captivity could be avoided by a timely and – in particular – humble appeal for an end of the hostilities.150 Such an agreement, however, required that the supplicant agreed to further concessions like the restoration of the cap­ tured possessions, the renunciation of former claims, the offering of pres­ ents or regular payments, or the exchange of hostages.151 Furthermore, the defeated was expected to cooperate in the future. Lack of coopera­ tion  could result in further oppressions. When in 555 the subjugated Thuringians supported the Saxon revolt, for example, the Franks also

trucidatur. Fred. 4.10, p. 126. See also Greg., Hist. 4.14, 4.29, 9.31, and the study by T. Scharff (2009) on the written tradition regarding the defeat of the Thuringians against the Franks. He concludes i.a. that “dort, wo die Historiographie Niederlagen anerkennt, [muss] diese mit Sinn gefüllt werden. Gott, der Siege und Niederlagen nach seinem Willen zuteilt, ver­ sagt den Triumph, weil die Feldherrn, der Herrscher oder das ganze christliche Volk von seinem Willen abweichen und nicht auf angemessene Weise im Verlauf der Heilsgeschichte voranschreiten. Die Niederlage hat also ihren Sinn darin, Herrscher und Volk zur Besserung aufzurufen” (pp. 463–4). 143 See Greg., Hist. 2.7, 4.23, 9.31; Fred. 4.14, 4.38; LHF 9. Cf. Sidonius on contemporary pirates qui proelia vitans/ victorem fugitivus agit. quis sufferat hostem,/ qui pacem pugnamque negat? Sid., Carm. 2, ll. 354–6, p. 182. See also Lex Sal. 30.6. 144 Greg., Hist. 3.6, 3.13, 4.23, 4.42, 6.31, 9.31; Fort., Rad. 5; Fred. 4.37, 4.38, 4.42, 4.78, 4.87. 145 See for example Greg., Hist. 9.31. 146 See for example ibid. 3.15, 4.23. 147 See ibid. 4.30. 4.42, 4.45, 4.47, 5.31, 6.12, 6.31, 7.12, 7.13, 7.24, 7.26, 9.31, 10.3; Fred. 4.78. 148 Fred. 4.78. See also Greg., Hist. 6.19. 149 Ibid. 2.32, 2.33, 4.14, 5.26; Fred. 4.33, 4.45, 4.74. See F. Curta (2006), underlining that “[f]ar from being just a matter of spoils, the tribute was an indication that the defeated party had recognised the asymmetrical power relation imposed by the victor.” (p. 694). Cf. Gerberding (1987), 36. 150 Pax cum Gothis facta, cum eam ancipitis pugnae lacrimabile experimentum humilius quam [umquam] antea poposcissent. Prosp., Chron. a. 439, p. 477. See also Greg., Hist. 4.23, 4.42, 4.49. A comparable appeal for peace could also be forwarded by the victor in order to avoid further bloodshed (and possibly hoping for a comparably good relation between conqueror and conquered in future times), see Gregory referring to Clovis’ victory over the Alamans: Ad ille [Clovis], prohibito bello, cohortato populo cum pace regressus. Greg., Hist. 2.30, p. 76. 151 See Greg., Hist. 3.15, 4.42; Fred. 3.37. Cf. Epist. Aus. 18.



the military and the world of thought189

punished the Thuringians by devastating their territory152 and emphasis­ ing thereby once more their supremacy.153 Victory, on the other hand, was the highest reward a soldier/warrior could aspire to.154 Before the young Sigismund went on campaign, his bishop Avitus of Vienne asked him to “go safely and return a victor!”155 Contemporary authors associated the word victoria with a consistently positive connotation156 and willingly used it even to refer to spiritual suc­ cesses.157 Unsurprisingly, victory was preferentially assigned by historio­ graphy to the assistance of God, and only through him to the abilities of the successful war-leader.158 Being victorious not only implied that the defeated had to formally submit themselves with their families to the new ruler, but also entailed the gain of significant riches, be it booty snatched in the course of a campaign, the compensation or tribute paid by the defeated, or the gain of their former ruler’s treasure (thesaurus).159 When a ruler had successfully assisted another to fight against a third party, he could also expect to receive some of the conquered territories or other 152 Eo anno rebellantibus Saxonibus, Chlothacharius rex, commoto contra eos exercito, maxime eorum partem delevit, pervagans totam Thoringiam ac devastans, pro eo quod Saxonibus solatium pracbuissent. Greg., Hist. 4.10, p. 141. Cf. Mar., Chron. a. 555. 153 Cf. Scharff (2009), 468–9. 154 See, for example, Denique cum victoria contigerit, totis adquiritur: et cum paucorum dextra pugnaverit, omnium gloria triumphavit. Avit., Hom. 6, p. 111, or the invitation directed by Venantius Fortunatus to the deacon Sindulf in Fort., Carm. 3.30, ll. 15–18, p. 77. Cf. also the large number of (Germanic) names containing a reference to being victorious, as in the names beginning with ‘Sigis-’/‘Sigi-’, see Morlet (1971), 197–200, or the Latin names Victor or Victorinus, see Morlet (1972), 116. 155 […] redite victores. Avit., Epist. 45, p. 74. Translation according D. Shanzer and I. Wood (2002), 235. Similar vobis Christo propugnante contingat et pax, quae cupitur et victoria, quae debetur. Ibid. 82, p. 99. 156 See also, for example Sid., Carm. 5, l. 380; Merob., Paneg. 1, frg. IB, l. 19; 2, l. 43; Vit. Ani. 7; Epist. Aus. 18; Greg., Hist. 4.42; Fort., Carm. 6.1a, ll. 9, 17; Fort., Hil. 21; Fred. 3.65; Vit. Land. 14; Vit. Chroth. 6. Victoria is also a favorite subject on Roman and Merovingian coins see figure 7. See also the quasi-imperial coins containing victoria inscriptions, Uhalde (2002), 144–56. See also Lee (2007), 38; King (1992), 193. See also the study of Wynn (2001, 10), showing that Gregory of Tours only used the word victoria to refer to victories acquired in the context of ‘just’ wars. Cf. the letter of Germanus of Paris to the queen Brunhild: Inhonesta victoria est fratrem vincere, domesticos domos humiliare et possessionem a parentibus constructam evertere; contra semetipsos pugnant suamque felicitatem exterminant. Epist. Aus. 9, p. 123. 157 See for example Vit. Ani. 7; Greg., Jul. 7; Fort., Carm. 8.4, l. 15; Fort., Marc. 48; Fort., Rad. 1; Jon., Col. 1.4. 158 On Clovis Christi victuriam meruit obtenire. Greg., Hist. 2.30, p. 76. Similar Greg., Hist. 2.37; Fred. 4.38; Vit. Chroth. 6. See, however Greg., Hist. 2.7, 6.41. See also Reydellet (1977), 196. 159 See Greg., Hist. 2.37; Fred. 4.38.

190

chapter five

Figure 7. Gold solidus bearing the name of Theudebert I (534-547/8). Obv: Portrait with cuirass, diadem and lance. DN THEOD-EBERTVS VI. Rev: Ruler, with a defeated enemy at his feet, Victoria at his right side. VICTORI-A-A-VCCI, COL, V. Minted in Cologne. Dim. 19,5 mm, 4,39 g. Location: Münzkabinett der Staatli­ chen Museen zu Berlin. Illustration from http://www.smb.museum/ikmk/,inv .nr.18202270. Courtesy of Prof. Dr. Bernd Kluge.

acquired possessions as a reward.160 Those having participated in a mili­ tary campaign, on the other hand, apparently acquired their part of the gathered booty – if they had not already helped themselves161 – according to the result of lots cast. This strategy is reported, for example, in the con­ text of Clovis’ victory over Syagrius when the loot had been brought to

160 Greg., Hist. 2.32, 3.4; Fred. 4.37, 4.38–9. 161 See T. Reuter (1985) underlining that “both Gregory of Tours and Fredegar record a number of incidents which suggest that in Merovingian times the armies could plunder and hold on to what they had plundered” (p. 79).



the military and the world of thought191

Soissons for distribution.162 The survival of this procedure until at least the late sixth century is documented by two comparable accounts on attacks directed against the inhabitants of Brioude near Clermont.163 The achievement of a comparable military success, of course, was not kept secret but was willingly propagated and celebrated. In the regions east of the Rhine, victories could be celebrated either by a ritualised immolation of the captives or the ritual deposition of the enemy’s arma­ ment.164 A comparable approach is also documented by Franks from the eastern regions of the Merovingian realm having taken part in Theudebert I’s campaign to Italy in 539.165 The Roman procedure of dispatching vic­ tory reports to be posted and read out in major cities in earlier Roman times, however, remains unmentioned by the fifth to seventh century sources. Neither do the sources contain evidence for surnames like ‘Germanicus’, referring to the defeated party and attributed to successful military leaders.166 There is no hint of coinage explicitly referring to recent victories,167 nor of any other comparable means of propagating military successes.168 The symbolism on Merovingian coinage at least referred to current military achievements to the extent that the victoria-symbolic only remained popular until the second third of the sixth century. When the realm ceased to record important victories against external enemies, the victory was gradually replaced by a cross.169 The only contemporary type 162 Greg., Hist. 2.27. More recently H.-W. Goetz (2010, 46) underlined that “hinter die­ sem Bericht [steht] unwillkürlich die Vorstellung eines geregelten Verfahrens bei der Verteilung der Beute.” Similar Halsall (2003, Warfare), 135. See also Reuter (1985), 79. 163 See Greg., Jul. 7, 13. Comparably, the Thuringian princess Radegund, the later queen of the Franks, is reported to have come into the hands of her future husband Chlothar I by lot. See also Pac., Paneg. 26; Greg., Mart. 65. Fort., Rad. 4–5. See also Werner (1988), 6; Reuter (1985), 79; Bodmer (1957), 100–1. The same procedure was used to distribute the territories between the sons of a recently deceased king. Greg., Hist. 4.22; Fred. 4.16. 164 See Hostes, binis castris atque ingenti praeda potiti nova quadam atque insolita exsecratione cuncta, quae ceperant, pessum dederunt. Vestis discissa et projecta est, aurum argentumque in flumen abjectum, loricae virorum concisae, phalerae equorum disperditae, equi ipsi gurgitibus immersi, homines laqueis collo inditis ex arboribus suspensi sunt, ita ut nihil praedae victor, nihil misericordiae victus adgnosceret. Oros., Hist 5.16, p. 180. See also Simek (2004), 12–19; Müller (2002), 127–48; Von Carnap-Bornheim (2008), 81. 165 Procop., Got. 6.25. Cf. Greg., Hist. 3.32. 166 See, for example Aus., Grat. 2.8; Sid., Carm. 5, l. 318. 167 Cf. McCormick (1990), 26–7, with further evidence. 168 See Lee (2007), 38–40, with further references. 169 This does not mean that this motive did not previously exist Grierson/Blackburn (1986), 119. That the cross became predominant since the last third of the sixth century, whereas the victoria had been predominant before that time, can also be observed, for example, in the collection exposed in Stahl (1994). See also the comments by A.D. Lee (2007) underlining that “Roman Imperial coinage leaves no doubt that victory

192

chapter five

of text that refers more explicitly to recent victories and contains the inten­ tion to make them public are the panegyrical poems, as those referring to the successes achieved by Aëtius, Sigibert, Chilperic, Lupus, or Gogo.170 There is no reason to assume, however, that these compositions were dif­ fused to an extent that would allow regarding them as a means of propa­ gating military successes beyond the intended audience of these poems. It seems much more likely that due to the reduced geographical scope of post-Roman regnancy, military successes were foremost diffused by oral propaganda. There are enough hints that military campaigns were an issue of discussion, as when Gregory of Tours opined in regard to Theuderic’s campaign to the Auvergne in the 530s that he believed that “nothing of Theuderic’s hostilities and Sigivald’s ignominies could be hid­ den to anyone.”171 Military successes, nevertheless, were reportedly cele­ brated in closer accordance to Roman tradition under the Burgundian ruler Gundobad in Vienne and the Frankish King Clovis in Tours. Although the sources neither tell us much on these specific festivities, it appears that they resembled ancient Roman triumphs, which would have included elements like the display of booty and captives to the urban population in the context of a procession.172 All in all, warfare represented far more phases and procedures than suggested by the theoretical synopsis provided by Isidore of Seville. A military campaign was characterised by many different moments that could be crucial experiences for every participant in such an undertaking and thus certainly left their prints in their individual ways of perceiving and reflecting the world they lived in. 2.3. Personal and Political Incitements The question that has only been marginally touched upon until now and that needs further investigation is what motivated men to initiate or was consistently the most common theme among the range of slogans used from the third to the fifth century” (p. 38). 170 See Merob. Paneg. 1; Fort., Carm. 6.1a, 7.1, 7.7, 9.1. 171 Et quia nulli latere credo aliquid de hostilitate Theoderici regis ac infirmitatibus Sigivaldi, quae ei in Arverno posito contigerunt. Greg., Jul. 13, p. 569. Cf. Merob., Paneg. 1, frg. IIB, ll. 5–6; Epist. Aus. 9; Fort., Carm. 7.8, 7.20; Gerberding (1987), 34. 172 Greg., Hist. 2.32, 2.38. On Clovis’ ceremony in Tours and his acclamation as consul, see Fanning (2002); McCormick (1989). See also Nam qualem praefatus princeps, in cui vos obprobio tanta dixistis, cunctis gentibus fidem servavit. Innumerabilem triumphorum, Deo volente, victoriis declaratur. Epist. Aus. 18, p. 132; Revertens Iustinianus cum magno triumpho Constantinopole. Fred. 2.62, p. 86. On the Roman triumph, see Rüpke (1990), 23–33. See also Pac., Paneg. 9.5.



the military and the world of thought193

actively participate in an armed undertaking. Of course, most conflicts were first of all instigated by the ambition of a ruler or a political body to enlarge their own territory and power.173 This motivation in all likelihood often prevailed even where other incitements like the aim to free the local population from foreign subjugation174 were explicitly mentioned by the sources. There is no doubt that Clovis, for example, first and foremost attacked the neighbouring Goths not to free their territory from heresy175 but to expand his rulership, to their detriment. From the late sixth century onward, the sources increasingly referred to personal interrelations as a major explanation for why a war had been waged. This includes all kinds of injuries caused to a king or his family members.176 The author of the Chronicle of Fredegar, for example, explained the fact that Clovis had instigated the same battle of Vouillé against Alaric with the fact that, according to him, the Frankish king had learnt that his opponent had only cultivated his friendship with deceptive intentions.177 In this case, friendship thus would have become enmity, and deception a cause to take up arms. Comparably, Theuderic II report­ edly seeked for revenge on his brother Theudebert II after he had experi­ enced several military failures he held his brother responsible for.178 That personal enmity had become a popular incitement for waging war is also 173 The sources include numerous accounts on successful and unsuccessful attempts to expand the own rulership. See, for example Prosp., Chron. a. 425, a. 436; Greg., Hist. 3.21, 3.32, 4.41, 6.42, 8.18, 8.30, 9.7, 9.31, 10.3. 174 See J. Callu (1980) suggesting that with his solidi of the years 546–48 containing the inscription pax et libertas, “Théodebert lance un appel à la libération des peuples” of the territories south and east of Gaul (p. 198). See also Epist. Aus. 20; Procop., Got. 6.25; Mar., Chron. a. 539; Greg., Hist. 3.32. 175 See Igitur Chlodovechus rex ait suis: ‘Valde molestum fero, quod hi Arriani partem teneant Galliarum. […]’. Greg., Hist. 2.37, p. 85. See also the pretexts explicitly mentioned in Greg., Hist. 3.4, 4.23, 4.30, 8.28, 8.30, 10.3; Fred. 4.37, 4.38, 4.39 to justify an attack fore­ most undertaken to expand the own rulership. 176 See, for example Post Theudoricus non inmemor periurias Hermenefrede regis Thoringorum Chlothacharium fratrem suum in solatio suo vocat et adversum eum ire disponit. Greg., Hist. 3.7, p. 103. See also the implicit reproach in Theudoricum regem [..] autem iniuriam soceri sui vindecare nolens, ire promisit. Ibid. 3.6, p. 103. 177 Igitur Alaricus rex Gothorum cum amicicias fraudulenter cum Chlodoveo inisset, quod Clodoveus, discurrente Paterno legato suo, cernens, adversum Alarico arma commovit et in campania Voglavensim decimo ab urbe Pectava miliario Alarico interfecit. Fred. 3.24, p. 102. See also Clovis’ instigation to attack Chararic (Greg., Hist. 2.41), the motive given for Guntramn’s expedition against Spain (ibid. 8.28), the near-quarrel between the sons of Clovis I regarding the Thuringian princess Radegund (Fort., Rad. 4), Theuderic’s justifica­ tion to attack his brother Theudebert (Fred. 4.3), Chlothar I’s motivation to go against Godinus (ibid. 4.54), or the group of friends and servants that gathered around Ebroin to go against his enemy Leudegar in Autun (Vit. Leud. 16). 178 Fred. 4.37.

194

chapter five

suggested by the bella civilia already mentioned, which apparently arose between 567 and 613, primarily as a consequence of personal enmities between the members of the ruling family.179 As will be argued below, military success and, if possible, consecutive victories,180 became a crucial factor in the establishment and mainte­ nance of lordship over a territory and its population following the fall of Roman authority in Gaul and the abolition of a supra-personal exercise of power.181 Martial virtues were praised in panegyrics, as Pacatus did by referring to the military skills and reputation of his emperor Theodosius.182 Although Fortunatus’ laudations lacking in comparable glorifications,183 the forthright connotations of equivalent values found in the Chronicle of Fredegar and the Liber Historiae Francorum184 suggest that military vir­ tues remained important throughout the period under consideration. The power of a ruler and other members of the highest stratum also strongly relied on the (regular) acquisition of (new) riches.185 As seen above, a ruler who supported another in defeating an enemy could be rewarded with a pre-defined fraction of the conquered possessions,186 whereas a subjugated population could be requested to pay one-off or even annual tributes.187 First and foremost, however, as M. Hardt has 179 See also Reydellet (1994, xxxix) suggesting that the jealousy of Chilperic I’s halfbrothers might have been a major incitement provoking the fraternal strives since the 560s. Other fights between the members of a same kin are mentioned, for example, in Greg., Hist. 3.4, 4.16, 8.28. 180 Implicit in nemo/enim de fama dubitat quotiens vicisse te nuntiat. Merob., Paneg. 1, frg. IIB, ll. 5–6, p. 64. Cf. Scharff (2004), 478. 181 See G. Halsall (2003, Warfare) suggesting that “martial ability and victory over enemies were central to so many early medieval social identities” (p. 160), T. Derks and C. Jefferis (1998), underlining that “warfare was one of the power bases of the elite” (p. 45), or K. Leyser (1994), referring to the early Middle Ages more in general and underlining that “war was justified by success in it and the wealth and aggrandisement of lordship it brought”(p. 190). Cf. Lee (2007), 35–6. That victory was considered as positive in any case is suggested by a letter to Brunhild underlining that Inhonesta victoria est fratrem vincere, domesticos domos humiliare et possessionem a parentibus constructam evertere; contra semetipsos pugnant suamque felicitatem exterminant. Epist. Aus. 9, p. 123. 182 Pac., Paneg. 8.1, 10.3. 183 Clearest in te arma ferunt generi similem, sed littera praefert: […] proelia robor agit, carmina lima polit./ legibus arma regis et leges dirigis armis. Fort., Carm. 9.1, ll. 107 and 110–11, p. 204. 184 See, for example Fred. 3.12, 3.22; LHF 7, 30. See also Gerberding (1987), 160. 185 On possible forms of royal income and their uses, see Hardt (1998), 274–7; Halsall (1998), 18; Claude (1973), 12. Cf. Reuter (1985), 78. 186 See Greg., Hist. 2.32, 3.4. 187 See, for example ditia pacatae dent uectigalia terrae;/ Impleat augustos barbara praeda sinus. Rut. 1, ll.143–4, p. 9; Sid., Epist. V 13.2; Greg., Hist. 4.14, 5.26, 9.29; Fred. 4.33, 4.45, 4.74; LHF 15, 35. See also Avit., Epist. 87 and Shanzer/Wood (2002), 253–4. See also



the military and the world of thought195

already argued, booty and the prospects for new treasures could consti­ tute war aims themselves.188 The acquired booty was tangible proof of victory that could subsequently be distributed to those who supported a ruler.189 However, only rulers and, if at all, members of the upper elite stood to benefit from military successes to the extent that they could thereby gain power and authority. This thus does not suffice to explain why those who fought their battles agreed to do so. The protection of an individual’s home and his relatives certainly was a predominant motivating force, even if the sources only rarely make explicit mentions in this regard. It is also in this situation that a man’s impulsion to irrevocably defeat his enemy must have been particularly strong.190 As illustrated above, contemporaries’ homes were threat­ ened  on a rather regular basis, as in the case of the large-scale fifthcentury inroads by Alans, Alamans, Vandals, or Huns;191 Alans, Avars and Lombards in the sixth century;192 or the seventh-century assaults by Basques and Alamans.193 These and other less dramatic events certainly represented an important threat to the livelihoods of those inhabiting the concerned regions, and the native population certainly did all within their power to prevent as much damage as possible, even where the sources do not explicitly mention that resistance had taken place. The same intention to protect their own homes and relatives might also have been prevalent for those members of subjugated tribes who considered it necessary to revolt against a foreign lordship, a scenario that is recorded

T. Reuter (1985) underlining that “[t]ribute was, so to speak, the gilt-edged income of the Franks from warfare” (p. 76). 188 Hardt (1998), 260 and 272. Riches could be used to attract or maintain a personal guard. The Italian general Belisarius, for example, is reported to have paid an impressive number of retainers from his own purse (Fred. 2.62). Cf. ditia pacatae dent uectigalia terrae;/ Impleat augustos barbara praeda sinus. Rut. 1, ll. 143–4, p. 9; quid aliud omnium militantium quam rapina? Sed putas forsitan, quod hoc etiam de personis istius modi ferri possit. Salv., Gub. 3.10, p. 33; Dixon/Southern (2000), 171. In Roman times, booty was generally considered as state property that was, at least partly, taken to Rome to be offered. Derks/ Jefferis (1998), 52. On the Roman attitude regarding plundering, see also Pohl (2007), 19–20. 189 Similar Lebedynsky (2001), 25. 190 Dixon/Southern (2000), 169. 191 See Chron. 452, a. 408; Prosp., Chron. a. 406, a. 451 ; Greg., Hist. 2.2. 192 See Greg., Hist. 4.23, 4.29, 4.42, 4.44, 9.29, 10.3; Greg., Mart. 12; Mar., Chron. a. 574. 193 See Fred. 4.37, 4.57, 4.78. Cf. J.M. Wallace-Hadrill (1975), underlining that the “Merovingians stepped into Roman shoes to be defenders of Gaul against eastern pressures on the Rhineland. Whether against Frisians, Saxons, Thuringians, Alamans or Bavarians, the Merovingian saw themselves as defenders, not aggressors” (p. 164).

196

chapter five

in regard to the sixth-century Bretons, Thuringians and Saxons194 and the seventh-century Thuringians and Slavs.195 Arms could also be used in order to meet expectations that emerged in the context of a man’s relation to another individual or group. As argued above, men could be obliged by their kings to participate in their cam­ paigns and could be punished for failing to do so. The incitement that most motivated a common fighter to take up arms, however, was in all likelihood the movable wealth he could expect to gather in the course of such an undertaking.196 This is documented most explicitly by an account found in Gregory’s Histories reporting that when in 585 a Frankish host had ended its occupation of Poitiers and headed toward the usurper Gundovald in southern Gaul,197 many inhabitants of Tours reportedly fol­ lowed them “hoping to share in the plunder”.198 However, the Poitevins apparently were just as anxious about their own share, as they killed some Turonians and stripped the rest, which made those from Tours return home again.199 At least one local inhabitant from the region of Tours had finally joined Guntramn’s campaign, nevertheless, as suggested by Gregory’s Lives of the Fathers containing an account of a man called Dado from the pagus of Pressigny who had taken two silver chalices back home from the same expedition.200 To many common fighters, greed or at least the potential of an occasion for enrichment, certainly were decisive moti­ vations to take up arms, if neither imminent necessity nor coercion already prevailed. The plunder taken from either an enemy or the native population could include material wealth, such as objects made of precious metal, clothing, or eatables, as well as prisoners and cattle who could either be enslaved or sold.201 The importance of plunder as a 194 Mar., Chron. a. 556; Greg., Hist. 4.10, 4.14, 4.16, 4.42, 5.26, 9.18, 9.24, 10.9. 195 Fred. 4.15, 4.68, 4.75, 4.77, 4.87. 196 According to Dixon/Southern (2000), “[t]he quest for booty and lasciviousness by the officers […] appears to have been the raison d’être of many” (p. 172) in late Roman times. 197 Cf. Greg., Hist. 7.35–38. 198 Secutique sunt eum de Toronicis multi lucri causa. Greg., Hist. 7.28, p. 346. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 409. See also Reuter (1985), 79. 199 […] sed Pectavis super se inruentibus, nonnulli interempti, plurimi vero spoliati redierunt. Greg., Hist. 7.28, p. 346. It remains unclear, however, why those men from Tours who had already previously joined the army likewise decided to desert and return home following this incident. See Hi autem qui de his ad exercitumprius iuncxerant pariter abierunt (ibid.). 200 Greg., Patr. 8.11. 201 See Sid., Epist. VI 6.2. Cf. Lex Sal. 39.3–4; Lex Alam. 39.1–2, p. 34. Cf. Halsall (2003, Warfare), 135; Barton (2001), 88; Scheibelreiter (1999), 340–56; Yamauchi (1995), 20 and 25; Reuter (1985), 78.



the military and the world of thought197

motivating force for military men is also confirmed by a contemporary account of Theudebert I, who reportedly only managed to persuade his men in 531 not to leave him and follow his brothers in attacking the Burgundians by promising them to lead them to: ‘[…] a land where you will be able to lay your hands on so much gold and silver that even your lust for booty will be satisfied. […] in this other land you may capture as many cattle and slaves and seize as much clothing as you wish.’202

The land focussed on here was the Auvergne and its central civitas Clermont, which were subsequently heavily devastated.203 It does not seem surprising that a military force called together to engage in battle was not necessarily happy about an untimely concluded peace. Sigibert’s men were reported, for example, to have revolted when they heard that no battle would take place after they had travelled all the way from east of the Rhine to face a prospective enemy.204 The importance of booty is also documented by the few accounts already mentioned according to which a king or military leader had not been able to keep his men from plundering.205 That booty and treasures remained important until the early eighth century is also suggested by the high interest the Liber historiae Francorum documents in this regard containing, according to R.A. Gerberding, thirty-one mentions of booty being taken, among which eight had been added to Gregory’s original account.206 The acquisi­ tion of booty could entail an important amelioration of the troops’ own 202 ‘Me sequimini, et ego vos inducam in patriam, ubi aurum et argentum accipiatus, quantum vestra potest desiderare cupiditas, de qua pecora, de qua mancipua, de qua vestimenta in abundantiam adsumatis. Tantum hos ne sequamini!’ Greg., Hist. 3.11, p. 108. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 171. On Theudebert’s campaign against the Auvergne, see also Hardt (2004), 170; White (1996), 125; Halsall (1998), 18; Bachrach (1972), 20–1. 203 See above. 204 Tunc ex gentibus illis contra eum quidam murmoraverunt, cur se a certamine subtraxisset. Greg., Hist. 4.49, p. 186. Cf. ‘Non paceficabis cum eis, sed surge, priliemus et ulciscamur in illis’. Fred. 3.51, p. 107; ‘Sicut promisisti, da nobis,ubi rebus ditemur aut preliemur alioquin ad patriam non revertimur’. Fred. 3.71, p. 112. In opposition to this, the Franks reportedly refused the peace the Saxons asked for despite their offer of more than half of their own goods in return (Greg., Hist. 4.14). Gregory left the impression that the Franks were eager to fight. However, it seems likely that he exaggerated the readiness of the Saxons to give in and the unreasonableness of the Franks to emphasise the reasonability and justness of Chlothar I’s supplications directed towards his men. Cf. Mar., Chron. a. 556. It is also uncertain in how far the goods offered by the Saxons would have actually been distributed by the king to the same degree as if the Franks would have helped themselves in the con­ text of an attack. Cf. Reuter (1985), 88, referring to the Carolingian times. 205 Greg., Hist. 6.31, 8.30. 206 Gerberding (1987), 165.

198

chapter five

livelihood. These movable riches could not only be exchanged to acquire general convenience goods but also, as will be argued below, to establish and maintain friendship, to assemble a personal following, or even to cre­ ate relationships of dependence.207 Wealth could also have some positive repercussions on a man’s social esteem.208 Just as booty implied victory more generally, it also represented undeniable proof of an individual’s success in a recent campaign209 – and this regardless of whether the actual outcome of a specific campaign had been victory or defeat. The plunder also stood for that moment of power where a man had been able to strip another of his possessions.210 Booty thus was a visible proof of a man’s power and military achievements. Every military encounter, furthermore, represented an ideal setting for a man to give evidence of his military skills and make himself noticed, be it by his own close environment of relatives and friends or by those in power. Potentially outstanding warriors could attract the interest of this last group and could at least in some cases be rewarded with a promo­ tion.211 King Dagobert I, for example, reportedly granted the command over a Burgundian army to the referendarius Chadoindus due to the mili­ tary skill and performance he had exhibited in previous battles.212 Rivalry for the fame that emanated from military success was neither infrequent. It appears that men of equal skills and standing particularly often com­ peted for fame and glory.213 The dux Boso, for example, reprimanded the 207 See Reuter (1985), 87–9. 208 See, for example tanta est miseria huius temporis, ut nullus habeatur magis nobilis quam qui est plurimum dives. Salv., Gub. III 10, p. 34; Willebadus cum esset opebus habundans, et pluremorum facultates ingenies diversis abstollens, ditatus inclete fuissit et inter patriciatum gradum et nimiae facultates aelacionem superbiae esset deditus, adversus Flaochadum a tumebat, eumquo dispicere quonaretur. Fred. 4.90, p. 166. 209 H.v. Stietencron (1995) also assumes that “Beute ist nicht nur erkämpfter Besitz, sie ist sichtbares Zeichen des erfolgreichen Einsatzes für das Wohl der Gemeinschaft und somit Ausdruck für zusätzlich gewonnenes Sozialprestige” (p. 46). Cf. Halsall (2003, Warfare), 136; (1998), 18. 210 Cf. the imagined discussion between Querolus and his household God (Lar): Qver. […] Si quid igitur potes, Lar familiaris, facito ut sim priuatus et potens. Lar. Potentiam cuiusmodi requiris? Qver. Vt liceat mihi spoliare non debentes, caedere alienos, uicinos autem et spoliare et caedere. Lar. Ha, ha, he, latrocinum non potentiam requiris. Quer. 1.2, ll. 15–19, p. 16. 211 Similar Halsall (2003, Warfare), 136. 212 Fred. 4.78. See also Ecdicius being conferred the title of a patricius. Sid., Epist. V 16.1. In Roman times, the sons of those soldiers who had gained glory and fame in the course of their service could profit of their father’s merits. See Demandt (1980), 629–30. 213 See also Stietencron (1995) underlining that “Ruhm ist somit das entscheidende Mittel, das dem Toten ein Weiterleben im Gedächtnis späterer Generationen sichert. […] es kann nicht verwundern, daß die Risikobereitschaft der Lebenden sich erhöht, wenn das Weiterleben nach dem Tod durch herausragende Taten konstituiert wird” (pp. 43–4).



the military and the world of thought199

dux Austrovald in the course of a campaign against Septimania by refus­ ing to wait for him to enter the city of Carcassonne and subject its inhabit­ ants by asking their oath of fidelity.214 A comparable rivalry is reported to have come up between the duces Beppolen and Ebrachar in the course of a campaign against the Bretons.215 The dux Radulf of Thuringia had even been so proud of a more recent military success against the Slavs that he did not refrain from misbehaving toward the dux Adalgisel and soon con­ sidered himself the king of the Thuringians.216 The extent to which the glory that emanated from a military success was the highest goal that every participant in warfare sought to achieve is best documented by a poem composed by Venantius Fortunatus stating that “[t]he soldier takes up arms and suffers injury to seek the palm of victory: to return as a victor, the soldier takes up arms”.217 To the common fighter, the military suc­ cesses that could be achieved against an enemy threatening his home country and fields, however, must have been most significant. This is best illustrated by Sidonius Apollinaris’ description of how Ecdicius ended the Gothic siege of Clermont, while the city’s inhabitants watched him and his men fight from the city walls and subsequently streamed out toward them to vociferously thank them with kisses, applause, and tears of joy.218 To sum up, armed undertakings represented not only an important source of income both to those in power and those who fought their bat­ tles, but likewise were significant factors for the establishment and main­ tenance of prestige and power, be it on an individual or a political scale. The reasons both groups took up arms thus did not significantly differ and could include in both cases the necessity to defend their own territory and its local population, the covetousness for material goods so impor­ tant to the establishment and maintenance of prestige and power, and the pursuit of fame and social recognition emanating from military suc­ cess including victory.219

214 Greg., Hist. 9.31. 215 Ibid. 10.9. See also Fred. 3.4. 216 Ibid. 4.77, 4.87. 217 […] miles ad arma venit quaerens per vulnera palmam:/ ut redeat victor, miles ad arma venit. Fort., Carm. 3.30, p. 77, ll. 15–16. See also ibid. 3.7, ll. 15–16, p. 57. Similar Ideoque et qui militant, id sibi pulchrum. Salv., Tim. II 10, p. 139. See, however, the comments by Derks/Jefferis (1998, p. 52) comparing the rewards a Roman soldier could expect to the situation of those of post-Roman times. 218 Sid., Epist. III 3.5–6. 219 Cf. Bulitta/Ebel (2001) summarising a man’s motivation with the words “der Gewinn an Prestige und Macht, die Durchsetzung eigener relig. Vorstellung – anstelle von Mission – die Erfüllung eines Rituals, um in die erwachsene Männerwelt aufgenommen zu werden,

200

chapter five

2.4. War and other Armed Violence Warfare did not represent the only form of armed violence that was fre­ quently documented by late Roman and early medieval sources. They can be grouped into three categories: violence exercised in the context of enmity, acts related to the retaliation for injuries, and acts executed in the context of the (subjective) determination of facts. The first includes rival­ ries, the second comprises acts of vengeance, whereas the third poten­ tially implies every form of combat that involved two opposing parties. The type of small-scale armed violence that has most sparked the interest of modern historians is the feud.220 Unsurprisingly, the defini­ tions and estimations suggested from a present-day perspective differ to a large extent. For this survey, however, it suffices to remember that the original Latin term faida refers to a concept that only appeared at a much later date,221 which is why the following section will only be able to deal with incidents that were characterised by consecutive retaliatory vio­ lence.222 This primarily includes enmity between locals and/or kins justify wrongs caused by either side and sustained for longer periods – generally more than one generation – and which thus involved more than one member of a family.223 Even if the general requirement that wrongs should be avenged is not an exclusively early medieval phenomenon, it appears that this obligation had become very important in early medieval society.224 This was particularly true in the case of a homicide,225 and it um Erhöhung des Ranges in der Gemeinschaft, der Kampf um Rohstoffe wie Metalle und Salz” (p. 351). 220 See more recently, with further references Steuer (2008); Meyer (2002); Halsall (1999, Reflections), 7–29; White (1996). 221 Wood (2006), 491–3; Depreux (2006), 84; Halsall (1998), 19–29. J.M. Wallace-Hadrill (1975) avoids the terminological problem by suggesting that “when we speak of feuds we generally mean quarrels between families, involving the neighbourhood more or less” (p. 160). Cf. Fouracre (1998), underlining that “[i]n early medieval sources generally the scarcity of background information on acts of violence makes it usually impossible to dis­ tinguish between vengeance-killing and feud” (p. 61, fn. 2). 222 Cf. G. Halsall (1998, Violence, 28), suggesting ‘customary vengeance’ as an alterna­ tive term. 223 Cf. Schott (1995), 951. 224 See, for example, Caesarius of Arles deploring that pro parvissimis damnis, quae nobis malorum hominum nequitia inferuntur, si possumus etiam usque ad mortem illorum nostras iniurias vindicamus. Caes., Serm. 37.2, p. 230. See also Terrenus homo si talem a Deo acceperit potestatem, persequatur, conprehendat, praedet, incendat, interfitiat: haec nullatenus possumus declinantes effugire. Pass. Leud. 22, p. 303. Vengeance neither was an exclu­ sively barbarian phenomenon see, for example Prosp. Chron. a. 424, a. 455; Chron. 452, a. 392. See also Meyer (2002), 227–8; Gradowicz-Pancer (1996), 286–7. 225 See Sid., Epist. VIII 11.13, 13.2; Greg., Hist. 5.15, 7.14.



the military and the world of thought201

might have been less important in the context of material damage.226 A well-known example is the vengeance required by the later sainted queen Clotild, the widow of the warlike king Clovis I. Following her hus­ band’s death, the queen reportedly arranged a meeting with her sons to beseech them: ‘My dear children […] do not give me cause to regret the fact that I have brought you up with such care. You must surely resent the wrong which has been done to me. You must do all in your power to avenge the death of my mother and father.”227

Although these acts of retaliation were generally executed by members of the victim’s family, S.D. White has conclusively demonstrated that an existing family tie between two people did not necessarily suffice to coerce the second to assist his relative in case of need, as even kinship relations required continuously maintenance before they could be effec­ tively activated.228 The nature and dimension of a dispute between differ­ ent families can be illustrated using the example of a well-known enmity that arose in the late sixth century between some Franks from Tournai due to an unhappy marriage concluded between members of both par­ ties. According to Gregory of Tours, […] the girl’s brother attacked his brother-in-law and killed him, with some of his relations. Then the brother in his turn was murdered by those who had supported his brother-in-law. In the end not a single member of either family remained alive, except one survivor for whom there was no oppo­ nent left. The next thing which happened was that relations of each of the two families started quarrelling with each other […].229

H. Steuer demonstrated only recently that the simultaneous killing of several members of the same settlement or region is also ascertainable by means of archaeological remains. The evidence mostly consists of 226 See, for example Greg., Hist. 7.22, 8.32. 227 ‘Non me paeneteat, carissimi, vos dulciter enutrisse; indignate, quaeso, iniuriam meam et partis matrisque meae morten sagaci studio vindecate.’ Greg., Hist. 3.6, pp. 101–2. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 166. See also Fred. 3.19. On Clotild’s vengeance, see also Meyer (2002), 261; White (1996). See also Fredegund deploring ‘Et quia non extat de filiis, qui criminis mei causae inquerat, tibi eas, Iesu domine, inquerendas committo.’ Greg., Hist. 6.32, p. 303. 228 White (1996), 121–5. 229 Quae iracundia, cum emendatio criminitati non succederet, usque adeo elata est, ut inruens puer super cognatum suum, eum cum suis interficeret atque ipse ad his, cum quibus venerat ille, posterneretur nec remaneret quispiam ex utrisque nisi unus tantum, cui percussor defuit. Ex hoc parentes utriusque inter se saevientes. Greg., Hist. 10.27, p. 520. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 586. See also Greg., Hist. 3.33, 5.32, 7.47.

202

chapter five

contemporaneous collective burials containing both armed men and unarmed women and children. The bodies often show heavy physical injuries, and they were generally buried in a way that seems to point to an affectional connection between the deceased.230 It is highly likely that at least a significant percentage of these burials can be traced back to con­ flicts that were very similar to the one just mentioned, even if their scale was certainly smaller in most cases.231 The conflict that reportedly rose in Tournai, on the other hand, did not substantially differ from the struggles known from the highest societal levels including those documented fol­ lowing the death of Brunhild’s sister Galswinth murdered, in all likeli­ hood, at the instigation of Queen Fredegund. It has been mentioned above that this conflict had likewise been fought by the victim’s next of kin, which in this case was the family of Galswinth’s sister, who opposed the kin of the supposed culprit. This conflict was even pursued by the off­ spring of both parties, until only one, the son of Chilperic and Fredegund Chlothar II, remained.232 A similarity in understanding these struggles and large-scale war is suggested by the terminology used by our main source to refer to both of them. As already mentioned, Gregory  of  Tours  used the same term, bellum civile, to refer to these late sixth-century royal con­ flicts as when he referred to the local acts of retaliatory violence executed at about the same time around the citizen Sichar in Tours.233 From a ­terminological point of view, the sources – at least Gregory – thus did not necessarily differ between large-scale armed violence fought by the armies of kings and hostilities fought on a local scale between individuals. Comparable to consecutive retaliatory violence, acts of force exercised in the context of enmity were mainly documented by contemporary sources when members of the highest stratum were involved. This makes it even more difficult to distinguish them, from a modern perspective, from acts executed in the context of customary warfare.234 The only crite­ ria that often remain for doing so are the scale and intentions of a specific conflict. This may be illustrated using an example from the Chronicle of Fredegar. It recounts how the murder of a certain Ermarius committed in 230 Steuer (2008), 346–56. 231 See, for example, Greg., Patr. 8.7. 232 See above. 233 Greg., Hist. 7.47, 9.19. See also Wallace-Hadrill (1975), 159–60; Wood (2006), 491. 234 Customary warfare refers here and subsequently to large scale conflicts that involved at least two opposing major political leaders having the authority to compel a significant percentage of all men living under their dominion, and able to take up arms, to do so.



the military and the world of thought203

Clichy in the course of a convention of Chlothar II’s bishops and nobility (proceres) by the satellites of the noble Saxon Aeghyna’s almost resulted in general bloodshed. The chronicle reports that while Aeghyna subse­ quently installed his men on the Montmartre, a certain Brodulf, who was willing to avenge the victim’s death, assembled another host of armed men. Only the king’s threat to call the noble Burgundians to put down those who would not give in finally settled the dispute before it could get out of hand.235 In case this would have happened, it would have been dif­ ficult to decide whether to speak of a large-scale war or of a local conflict between individuals. Although the main actors were members of the higher stratum and thus involved a significant number of armed men, the scale of the conflict would, in all likelihood, have remained small, despite the involvement of the Burgundian nobility. Furthermore, at least the known motivations were rather personal, which primarily included the aim to avenge a wrong and, possibly, personal enmity.236 Another procedure allowing the removal of rival or personal enemy was to meet him in a man-to-man combat. Gregory of Tours, once more, vividly described how the dux Dragolen blocked the road of the dux Guntramn Boso accompanied by his daughters. According to the author, both men first exchanged words of provocation, followed by Dragolen ­riding at full speed toward his opponent. However, the attacker failed to kill his enemy and ended with his lance broken and his sword dropped to the ground. When Guntramn Boso saw this mischance, he reportedly prayed for the help of St Martin, raised his lance, and stabbed his oppo­ nent.237 The sources do not strictly differ between a comparable single man-to-man encounter and those fought in the context of a battle. One reason might be that both forms of contest bear significant similarities. Isidore of Seville, for example, assumed that war had been initially called a ‘duel’ (duellum) because combats were usually fought by two factions.238 It was also common to arrange to meet with the opponent in the context 235 Fred. 4.55. See also the enmity of Ursio and Bertefred against the dux Lupus. Greg., Hist. 6.4. 236 Not every interpersonal hostility or rivalry ended up in fighting; they could also result in the perfidious killing of one of the opponents, see, for example Prosp., Chron. a. 454; Greg., Hist. 2.40, 3.8; Fred. 4.88. 237 Greg., Hist. 5.25. A very similar contest is documented in regard to the encounter between the troublemaker Vedast and Childeric the Saxon (ibid. 7.3). 238 Bellum antea duellum vocatum eo quod duae sint partes dimicantium, vel quod alterum faciat victorem, alterum victum. Isid., Ety. XVIII 1.9, p. 77. On medieval ideas related to the duel, see Liénhard (2008), 211–23; Dinzelbacher (2006). For a more juristic apprecia­ tion of the early medieval duel, see Fehr (1914), 113.

204

chapter five

of both, the battle and the duel.239 The challenges that were reportedly made before some large-scale military encounters did not signifi­cantly differ from those known to have been made in the context of a duel. Gregory of Tours described how the Frankish kings Clovis and Ragnachar challenged Syagrius to come out of Soissons to fight, stressing thereby that the latter did not hesitate to come out to face his contenders.240 The commonalities between the duel and war are best documented in con­ temporary ways to comprehend and interpret their respective outcomes. This concept can be traced back to the writings of the first-century histo­ rian Tacitus recounting that before an important battle some Germanic tribes used to fetch a member of the opposing party to have him fight one of their own men. The intention of this duel was, according to him, to find out which side would be victorious in the subsequent battle.241 Even if there was no continuity between this ritual and similar procedures docu­ mented in regard to the late fifth to seventh centuries, both were charac­ terised by significant similarities. In the early Middle Ages, comparable rituals likewise aimed at establishing a future outcome, now expected to be governed by the will of God. The Chronicle of Fredegar, for example, reports that the maior domus Bertoald challenged Landerich by suggest­ ing that they should make God decide who shall prevail by means of a duel.242 The ancient idea that the outcome of a duel could be considered the substitutional decision of a prospective battle is contained in the words Gregory attributed to an Alamannic king on the verge of attacking the Vandals: ‘How much longer is war going to devastate an entire people? In my opinion the armed forces of both peoples should not be slaughtered, but two cham­ pions chosen one from each side should meet fully armed on the field of combat and should fight it out between them. That side whose champion is victorious should take over the territory in dispute without further contest.’243 239 Bulitta/Ebel (2001), 342. 240 Greg., Hist. 2.27. 241 Tac., Germ. 10. Cf. Udwin (1998, 34) suggesting that these duels were foremost a means to encourage the own troops through the captive’s defeat. 242 Fred. 4.25. A similar idea can be found in Greg., Hist. 6.31. See also Goetz (2011), 150; Leyser (1994), 192. See also H. Holzhauer (1986) underlining that “der verbreitete Grundsatz, dass die Partei persönlich zu kämpfen hatte und für eine Vertretung besondere Gründe vorliegen mussten, [bestätigt] die Vorstellung, dass die Parteien persönlich ihrer Kräfte zu messen hatten.” (p. 282). See the rare case mentioned in Greg., Hist. 10.10, where the cubicularius Chundo asked his nephew to fight for him in such a duel. 243 ‘Quousque bellum super cunctum populum commovetur? Ne pereant, quaeso, populi utriusque falangae, sed procedant duo de nostris in campum cum armis bellicis, et ipse inter



the military and the world of thought205

The same idea clearly emerges from the words the same author attributed to a Lombard who reportedly challenged the Franks at Lake Lugano on their campaign in Italy under the command of the young king Childebert II: “Today we shall find out which side God intends to be victorious!”244 When Chlothar I was compelled to fight his own son Chramn, he also reportedly expected a divine judgement. Shortly before engaging in the fight he prayed, according to Gregory of Tours: ‘Look down from heaven, O Lord, […] and judge my cause, for I suffer injury unjustly at the hands of my son. Look down, O Lord, and make a fair deci­ sion, and pass again that judgement which You passed between Absalom and his father.’245

The outcome of a combat was apparently considered to be unpredictable and recognised as the product of a divine hint, will, or judgement. This is why it could also be used to define a statement of fact that could not be established by other means. This made it particularly suitable to solve an unclear legal case. The Burgundian legislation, for example, stated that a claimant without faith in the oath offered by the party under suspicion246 could ask that the latter proved his innocence in a duel with the accu­ sor.247 That comparable procedures existed under Merovingian rule (at least on Burgundian territory) is suggested by the case already mentioned of Guntramn’s chamberlain Chundo, accused of having killed an aurochs in a royal forest. His case was likewise solved by combat.248 The same idea is implied in the words reportedly used by the envoys the pretender Gundovald sent to king Guntramn to challenge him with the invitation to se confligant. Tunc ille, cuius puer vicerit, regionen sine certamine obtenebit’. Greg., Hist. 2.2, p. 39. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 106–7. Cf. Fred. 2.60. 244 ‘Hodie apparebit, cui Divinitas obtenere victuriam praestit’. Greg., Hist 10.3, p. 485. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 550. See also Goetz (2011), 145–50 with further examples, underlin­ ing that, according to Gregory of Tours, divine judgements were actively summoned. Cf. Udwin (1998), 36–7, suggesting that Gregory set up this story in accordance with Goliath’s defeat by the Hebrews. See also Agath., Hist. 1.2. 245 ‘Respice, Domine, et iudica causam meam, quia iniusta a filio iniurias patior. Respice, Doimine, et iudica iuste, illudque inpone iudicium, quod quondam inter Adsalonem et patrem eius Davis posuisti’. Greg., Hist. 4.20, p.153. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 216. Cf. K. Leyser (1994, 193–4) arguing that the appearance of mercenaries in later centuries caused the problem that their assistance risked to falsify the outcome of a battle and through that the divine judgment that was expected through it by underlining that if warfare “was waged to defend oneself against injury or to vindicate offended rights, it must necessarily be waged by the injured party and could not be entrusted wholly to mercenaries” (p. 193). 246 Cf. Greg., Hist. 5.32. 247 Lex Gund. 45. Cf. Schott (1995), 954. 248 Greg., Hist. 10.10. For a similar case, see Fred. 4.51. Cf. Leyser (1994), 192.

206

chapter five

meet on the battlefield and thereby let God judge whether both were blood related or not.249 In this case, it was thus a battle, not a man-to-man duel, which was expected to be able to determine a state of fact that lacked further evidence. To sum up, there were significant parallels between large-scale warfare and local armed conflicts fought between individuals. It seems significant that the sources do not differ terminologically between the two scales of combat,250 whether in the context of acts committed in the context of retaliatory violence, of enmity, or of man-to-man combat. The only explicit differentiation that was made is the one already mentioned between customary and civil warfare (bellum civile). This suggests that contemporaries must have perceived this commonality between both forms of armed violence, despite the differences that certainly character­ ised both experiences. 2.5. The Use of Force and Preventions of Violence The works of Gregory of Tours contain a large amount of evidence sug­ gesting that the times he dealt with in writing were characterised by an omnipresence of violence. The hardship that emanated from it was not limited to warfare or the presence of armed hosts on the road. Settle­ ments were frequently haunted by bands of armed men who were up to no good and terrorised the local population. In the second half of the sixth century, the civitas of Clermont is known to have been afflicted by the royal prince Chramn and his followers,251 as well as the royal delegate Sigivald;252 Poitiers is known to have been threatened by both a certain Vedast known as Avus and the sons of the former maior domus Waddo.253 The civitas of Tours is known to have been subsequently perturbed by the (former) comes Leudast,254 the cubicularius Eberulf,255 the guardian of the royal horses Pelagius,256 and the comes stabuli Chuppa and his follow­ ing.257 The fact that these documented cases were all localised in the 249 Greg., Hist. 7.32. 250 Only the Church penitentials, which were foremost interested in the intention why violence had been caused, differed more clearly between war and local acts of violence, see Meyer (2002), 259–60, with further evidence. 251 Greg., Mart. 65. 252 Greg., Hist. 3.16. 253 Ibid. 7.3, 10.21. 254 Ibid. 5.47–49, 6.32. 255 Ibid. 7.22. 256 Ibid. 8.40. 257 Ibid. 10.5.



the military and the world of thought207

areas around Tours and Gregory’s home civitas Clermont suggests that comparable behaviour was much more widespread, despite lack of fur­ ther evidence.258 The supposition that the local population had some means of dealing with comparable acts of violence is supported by accounts reporting that the inhabitants of Tours had been able to assem­ ble a host and expel Chuppa and his men,259 or that even military units had to anticipate the eventuality of being attacked and possibly annihi­ lated by local forces.260 Gregory’s works, furthermore, contain numerous accounts which leave the impression that his contemporaries’ disposition to resort to violence was very high and could break out at random. For example, when a quarrel arose between two men attending a pagan cer­ emony in the little vicus of Brioude near Clermont, one of them suddenly dragged out his sword and reportedly only failed to kill his opponent because the latter had been able to escape to the local saint’s cubicle and shut the doors behind him.261 A servant of a village priest from the region of Tours who had been sent to invite some locals to have a drink at his master’s house was reportedly killed on the spot by one of those he had been charged to invite.262 Even if these accounts were all composed by Gregory of Tours, the only author who dealt more extensively with local occurrences – and although his prime aim was certainly not to give jour­ nalistic accounts of what had happened – it would be wrong to assume that these accounts contain only fiction. The main question these accounts and the apparent general omnipresence of violence raise is thus to what extent contemporaries considered the use of force as legitimate and whether there were any volition or procedures to help reducing the hardship it could entail. The Salian Law stipulates an extraordinarily high wergeld for any mur­ der committed on campaign,263 which suggests that military men had a certain disposition to be violent. That contemporaries lived in a general state of perceived insecurity is also confirmed by the many fortifica­ tions, city walls, and castra erected since late Antiquity, as mentioned in 258 The only example of a comparable rowdy outside the close environment of Gregory of Tours is documented due to the fact that his tomb was miraculously expelled several times from the church he had been buried in, see Greg., Mart. 88. 259 Greg., Hist. 10.5. 260 Exercitus vero ipsius, qui prius transierat, metuens per viam illam qua venerat regredi, ne forte mala quae fecerat pateretur. Greg., Hist. 10.9, p. 493. See also ibid. 7.35. 261 Greg., Jul. 5. 262 Greg., Hist. 7.47. See also ibid. 7.21. 263 Lex Sal. 63.1–2. This stipulation thus only focussed on acts committed inside a same host.

208

chapter five

a previous chapter. Furthermore, the sources mention several precau­ tions for defence provided by a number of convents and other religious facilities, among which some were willingly erected at well-defended locations, and sometimes providing fortifications that could include armament.264 The fact that custodians were for the most part appointed to protect local churches265 likewise points to a lack of general security. The fact that the author of the Liber Historiae Francorum added violent elements to many accounts he learnt from the works of Gregory of Tours likewise suggests, according to R.A. Gerberding, that “Gregory’s picture was not quite violent enough”266 for this writer, which might point to an increased exposure to violence until the early eighth century. A general disposition toward armed violence has never been seriously doubted by either past or current researchers.267 The measures taken by the contemporary authorities to reduce the scale of violence were not always sustainable. In case of a homicide, the Salian Law stipulated that a payment of a considerable sum should be made to atone for the commit­ ted crime. This could vary between 100 and 1800 solidi268 if a free man or woman was afflicted. The exact amount was fixed according to the age, gender, and ethnicity of the deceased, his social and political position, the location of the crime, and the initial intention and subsequent proceed­ ing of the offender.269 But these stipulations represented more a means to reduce dissemination of violence by offering an alternative to arbitrary law than a method of categorically reducing it.270 That this procedure could work is documented by the case of the killing of the troublemaker Vedast, already mentioned, by Childeric the Saxon. The issue was 264 Fort., Carm. 3.12; Jon., Col. 1.14; Dado, Elig. 1.16; Vit. Sad. 13, 14. 265 Greg., Hist. 2.7, 8.11, Greg., Jul 20; Greg., Mart. 8, 9, 43, 58, 71; Greg., Virt. 1.31; Dado, Elig. 1.30, 2.65. See also R. Le Jan (2001, 246–50), underlining that the hostilities of the elite against nunneries were an integral part of the conflicts fought in the context of the con­ temporary struggles for power. 266 Gerberding (1987), 36. See also ibid. 36–8. 267 See, for example Steuer (2008), 362; Liebeschuetz (2007, Violence), 46; Meyer (2005), 63; Scheibelreiter (1999), 215–33; Halsall (1998), 4; Reynolds (1987), 123; Graus (1965), 324; Bodmer (1957), 58–9, 67. However, see also the critical comments by W. Pohl (2007), 25–6. 268 Cf. Lex Rib. 36.11. 269 Cf. age (Lex Sal. 24.1, 24.4, 24.5, 24.6, 24.8, 24.9, 41.15, 41.17, 41.18, 41.20), gender (ibid. 24.1, 24.4, 24.5, 24.8, 24.9, 41.5, 41.6, 41.7, 41.15, 41.16, 41.17, 41.18, 41.19), ethnicity (ibid. 41.1, 41.2, 41.3, 41.8, 41.9), social position (ibid. 10.6, 15.1, 24.8, 35.9, 41.1, 41.3, 41.10, 41.16, 41.19), political position (ibid. 41.5, 41.6, 41.7, 41.8, 41.9, 42.1, 54.1, 54.2, 54.3), location (ibid. 41.21, 42.1, 42.2), initial intention (ibid. 28.1, 28.2, 28.3), subsequent proceeding (ibid. 41.2, 41.4, 41.6, 41.7, 70.1, 70.2). 270 Cf. Schott (1995), 951; Althoff (1994), 249; Wallace-Hadrill (1975), 159.



the military and the world of thought209

subsequently settled by the latter paying the compensation due to the victim’s sons.271 However, this method was not always that effective, as shown by the well-known case of the Turonian citizen Sichar.272 Here the willingness to make such payments was very low, and Sichar only finally paid due to the fact that his bishop had agreed to make a significant con­ tribution.273 However, it seems doubtful whether people possessing less wealth than the well-off Sichar could actually afford the high amount stipulated in the case of a comparable crime, even if they had wanted to. Apart from risking an act of revenge by the injured party,274 the fact that another man from the same region accused of murder was not compelled to pay the required wergeld but condemned to the gallows275 suggests that in a comparable case, compensation was not the only penalty that could be expected.276 Although the threat of retaliation by the injured party might have exerted some pressure on the malefactor to accept a court’s judgment, as suggested by J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz,277 this must not necessarily have been part of the underlying intention of the legislator, as the Merovingian authorities did not show any willingness to tolerate a comparable reac­ tion. When a man killed another with his sword in the context of a riot and was subsequently slain by the dead man’s brother, the latter was cap­ tured by the judge and condemned to capital punishment, as the culprit had not waited for his decision.278 The Lex Burgundionum was the earliest barbarian law that stipulated the death penalty for those who had com­ mitted homicide.279 Until then, this was only common to Roman legisla­ tion.280 The same law strove to reduce consecutive retaliatory violence by 271 […] composuit tamen filiis Saxo ille mortem eius. Greg., Hist. 7.3, p. 328. 272 Greg. Hist. 7.47, 9.19. See also the more recent discussion of this case by Depreux (2006), 79–80; and more in general Diesselhorst (1991), 187–208. Cf. Halsall (1998) suggest­ ing more generally, that “[a]ccepting compensation is often regarded as dishonourable, and is no long-term substitute for equalling the score violently” (pp. 21–2). Similar Halsall (1999, Reflections), 15. 273 On the underlying procedures, see the comments by Goetz (2010), 37–8; Liebeschuetz (2007, Violence), 45–6. 274 See the comments in Liebeschuetz (2007, Violence), 43. 275 Greg., Hist. 6.8. 276 See J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz (2007) underlining that “all but very few of the Frankish ones [laws] only state the compensation to be paid for the injury without specifying what happened if compensation was refused” (p. 40). 277 Liebeschuetz (2007, Violence), 40. 278 Greg., Patr. 8.7. Cf. G. Halsall (1999, Reflections) suggesting that “in sixth-century Gaul, the local count or judge had to decide in favor of a plaintiff before vengeance could be taken” (p. 20). 279 Lex Gund. 2.1, 1.3, 2.4, 29.1. Cf. ibid. 2.2. 280 Cf. Schott (1995), 949. See also Sid., Epist. VIII 11.

210

chapter five

preventing the involvement of innocent members of a kin, as it decreed that only the initiator of such a crime should be punished while prohibit­ ing the persecution of the latter’s relatives by the deceased’s family.281 In Merovingian legislation, a comparable approach towards homicide is only ascertainable in the later sixth century, when a stipulation by the young king Chilperic II decreed: “Whosoever in criminal audacity kills another without legal justification shall be in mortal danger. […] because it appears just that, who knows how to kill, learns how to die”.282 Here again, the members of the offender’s kin were asked to keep out of the matter by prohibiting any assistance from their side. Beyond this, the same regulation explicitly excluded manslaughter from the option to atone for this crime by the payment of compensation.283 The payment of compositio, however, continued to be practiced in the seventh century to settle a (potential) dispute between families following the violent death of a member of one party, as a formula from the Marculf-collection documents.284 Another procedure that was apparently used to prevent or reduce the escalation of violence was to request oaths expected to prove a man’s innocence in case of an accusation.285 As S. Esders recently exposed, oath-givers were most of all an instrument of persuasion. It was less decisive whether an oath was rightly given or not than how strong the support of either party was. The oath-givers guaranteed the credibility of the accused, but most of all they were a demonstration of the latter’s power, as the accused as well as the accusor were requested to find an adequate number of men ready to swear or even perjure themselves for them.286 This situation once more bore the potential to re-establish peace through coercion.287

281 Lex Gund. 2.7. Cf. Liebeschuetz (2007, Violence), 43; Esders (2007), 60; Meyer (2002), 249; Haubrichs (1996), 39. Cf. however, Wood (2006), 493. 282 De homicidiis vero ita iussimus observare, ut quicumque ausu termerario alium sine causa occiderit vitae periculum feriatur […] quia iustum est, ut qui novit occidere, discat morire. Capit. 2.5, p. 16. 283 Forsitan convenit ut ad solutionem quisque discendat, nullus de parentibus aut amicis ei quicquam adiuvet; nisi qui praesumpserit ei aliquid adiuvare, suum weregildum omnio componat. Capit. 7.5, p. 16. 284 Form. Marc. 2.8. 285 See for example Lex Gund., 8.1–6, 45; Lex Sal. 53, 58.1–2; Greg., Hist. 5.32, 5.49; Lex Rib.7, 9, 10.1, 11.2, 16; Dado, Elig. 2.58. 286 Esders (2007), 60–1; see also ibid. 64–5. See also the comments in Halsall (1998), 21–2. See also ‘Si eum cum idoneis hominibus Fredegundis ab hac actione, qua inpetitur, inmunem fecerit, abscedat liber et quo voluerit eat’. Greg., Hist. 9.13, p. 428. Dado, Elig. 2.58. 287 Cf. Liebeschuetz (2007, Violence), 38.



the military and the world of thought211

These were not the only attempts to reduce violence or establish qui­ etude. The Frankish dux Herpo from the pagus Ultraiuranus, for example, reportedly tried to establish peace by suppressing local disputes; how­ ever, he was subsequently killed by those whom he intended to pacify.288 On the other hand, when Theuderic II’s leudes claimed that peace should be made with his brother Theudebert II and only the patricius Protadius insisted on an attack, Theuderic’s military savaged the latter, as they assumed that the death of one man would be preferable to putting a whole army under mortal peril.289 Possibly in the same intention, when hosts of Alamans and Vandals met in Gaul both agreed, according to Fredegar, that a duel should decide the outcome of an otherwise inevita­ ble battle.290 Another successful prevention of subsequent violence was documented by Gregory, reporting that Chilperic I had been advised by his confidants not to avenge the devastation of a bridgehead near Paris by one of Guntramn’s duces. As a consequence, an emissary was sent to his brother, who soon agreed to make amends for the damage.291 Referring to the example of the intermediaries that were often appointed by two opposing parties to end a conflict, G. Althoff argues that early medieval conflicts were rarely initiated at random.292 Although the fifth- to seventh-century sources do not explicitly mention comparably elaborate procedures as G. Althoff refers to known of later centuries, they do mention cases where a struggle had been settled by the arbitration of a third party. Probably the best-known case is when, according to Fredegar, Chlothar II and his son Dagobert I solved their disagreement on the distribution of their lordship over the Merovingian territories by the 288 Fred. 4.43. 289 […] dicens melius esse uno hominem moriturum, quam totum exercitum in periculum missum. Fred. 4.27, p. 131. The question raised by this case is why the members of this host did not insist on an occasion to take up arms. Did they have reasons to believe that no significant booty could be expected from this encounter? Or did the aim to reduce vio­ lence in fact prevail? Or was it the fact that this fight was fought between two Merovingian kings that made it a less convenient occasion to snatch booty? 290 Alamanni adversus Wandalus arma commorunt. Uterque consencientes singulare certamen priliandum, duos miserunt. Fred. 2.60, p. 84. The same idea can also be found in Satius est enim, ut parvi contumaces pereant, quam ira Dei super omnem regionem dependat innoxiam. Greg., Hist. 8.30, p. 395; Rectius enim paucorum condempnatione multitudo corregitur, quam sub specie incongruae civilitatis intromittatur occasio, quae licentiam tribuat delinquendi. Lex Gund. 52.5, p. 556. Cf. also Agath., Hist. 1.2. 291 Greg., Hist. 6.19. In most cases, however, the initiative to mediate between two opposing parties was attributed to members of the royal family, see ibid. 4.49, 6.4; Fred. 4.55. Cf. Fort., Carm. 7.24. 292 Althoff (1995), 69–70; (1994), 248–51.

212

chapter five

judgement of twelve Franks chosen for this purpose.293 As a further but less apparent means to at least reduce the arbitrariness of homicide, one could also mention the requirement to publish any killing considered to have been committed legitimately by exposing the victim’s body.294 This is what Chramnesind reportedly did after he found himself obliged to kill his rival Sichar, having previously offended him. Sichar’s undressed body thereupon was hung on a fence post.295 This does not imply, however, that the relation of post-Roman society to violence was ambiguous. Although the use of armed force represented a pivotal means of acquiring wealth, honour, and power, the peril that emerged from comparable undertaking was preferentially avoided, par­ ticularly in cases where no adequate compensation like booty or pay­ ments could be expected. The loss of brave warriors was frequently explicitly deplored by contemporary sources. When Gregory of Tours, for example, recounted how Sigibert’s men ignored Chilperic I’s appeal to cease threatening his wife and son in Soissons and how they were subse­ quently defeated, the author decried that strenuous and capable men died in this battle.296 The young Sigibert III even reportedly cried after realising that a large number of his best men had perished.297 To sum up, violence was a significant feature of fifth- to seventhcentury society in Gaul. It was not only predominant in the context of warfare but likewise on a daily local basis, including quarrels between individuals. Although the use of force appears as an omnipresent feature of the time considered here, the sources do not leave the impression that 293 Fred. 4.53. See also the arbitration between Flaochad and Willebad, ibid. 4.90. 294 See H.-W. Goetz (2010) assessing that the aim of this ritual was to prove “dass er die Tat nicht verheimlichen wollte, also keinen Mord, sondern eine öffentlich bekundete Rechtstat begangen hatte” (p. 40). Similarly, G. Halsall (1998) underlining that “[a] general principle, attested throughout our period, appears to have been that if violence took place in public, or if it was publicly acknowledged, this might alleviate its consequences. In some cases to make an act of violence public was to declare its legitimacy” (p. 15). 295 Greg., Hist. 9.19. See Halsall (1998, Violence, 26); (1999, Reflections, 14), with further examples. Cf. Meyer (2002), 249. Accordingly, the required wergeld was increased to a not insignificant extent regarding acts of homicide followed by the attempt to hide the crime with the intention to escape the punishment due, see Lex Sal. 41.2, 41.4, 41.6, 41.7, 70.1, 70.2. Cf. G. Halsall (1998) suggesting that “[t]here are three possible reasons for these concerns. The first is that to conceal a body was probably seen as an admission that the killer had no reason to commit the crime; the second is that it was perhaps seen as dishonourable and doubly blameworthy to refuse to acknowledge the consequences of one’s actions; thirdly, and related to this, the concealment of a crime might lead to punishment, or vengeance, being exacted on an innocent party, and that in turn might lead to spiralling violence within a community” (p. 16). 296 […] multus ex ea strenuos atque utilis viros prosternens. Greg., Hist. 5.3, p. 196. 297 Fred. 4.87. See also ibid. 4.33, 4.38. See also Fort., Carm. 7.16, ll. 47–8.



the military and the world of thought213

it was considered legitimate in most regards. Although it is difficult to assess to what extent this impression is due to the primarily Christian authors or whether it is a genuine reflection of a contemporary stance, it appears as if the sufferings armed violence could cause had been just as unpopular as in any other society, which is why contemporaries attempted to avoid or at least to reduce it wherever possible. 2.6. Summary Neither the definitions, nor the terminology, or procedures documented in regard to armed violence make a clear delineation between large-scale warfare, fought by called up armies, and medium- to small-scale disputes, fought between locals, members of kin, or individuals. Although it is often possible to distinguish between both categories from a present-day per­ spective, related early medieval concepts often seem to have overlapped. This includes most of the delimitation between public and private motives and procedures. Furthermore, many procedures that are known to have been current in the context of large-scale warfare, were also practiced in local struggles, and vice versa. This includes the motivation by personal enmity, rivalry, or the need to avenge a wrong, the determination of a field of combat, the experience of man-to-man combat, the use of oaths and compensation to settle a dispute, and the idea of a divine judgment emerging from the outcome of a combat. To sum up, what this section shows is that practices and attitudes related to the world of war were not limited to customary warfare alone but were likewise present in everyday habits and traditions, like the settlement of legal issues on a local basis. This state of fact once more confirms the omnipresence and signifi­ cance of violence and military activity in post-Roman society. 3. Prevailing in a Militarised Society The end of Roman rule in the West was accompanied by the collapse of a major portion of ancient administrative and societal structures that until then had characterised people’s everyday lives. Although these changes did not affect every aspect of post-Roman society, new and/or altered means and strategies had to be developed to replace those that had van­ ished. More than in later Roman times, life in post-Roman society was characterised – apart from an increased exigency to self-protection and to vindicate incurred wrongs – by the necessity for individuals to clearly rep­ resent the function they held and to conform to the scope of action that

214

chapter five

was thereby conceded to them. In order to get a better idea of the differ­ ent means and methods that were used to prevail in a society that became more and more characterised by the need to use and outperform in the use of violence, four major strategies and general requirements to display and maintain a man’s position in society will be analysed in the following sections: the demonstration of power and authority through the display of supremacy, the alliance to people of the same or comparable status, the struggle against those causing a threat, and the subordination to those who had proven to be stronger. The first section will therefore focus on the necessity for rulers to demonstrate supremacy, while the second sec­ tion will look at the interpersonal strategies established between people of equal status and those subordinated to the more powerful. 3.1. Supremacy The second chapter has shown that with the collapse of Roman authority in the West, the power structures established until then in north-western Europe gradually faded, leaving only fragments of what had previously been, including titles, regional districts, or scopes of responsibility. The erosion of known power structures is reflected in the contemporary uses of titles which became gradually devoid of meaning until the seventh cen­ tury, by which time it was almost impossible to associate a specific field of responsibility with a specific office title. Authority was now assigned to a man, not necessarily because a specific office or title had been entrusted to him by a governmental institution, but because a significant number of people considered him powerful enough to handle it – be it due to previ­ ous successes, personal charisma, particular skills, or ancestry.298 This changed nature of authority, based less on a consecutive acquisition of new titles and functions than on inter-personal ties and responsibilities, entailed that sway had to be secured by a constant and public proof of ownership of power through a regular demonstration of supremacy. This is true in particular where a person intended to gain, i.e., to be awarded, new power or to maintain his authority over a long period of time, as his capability of satisfying the expectations of those that would attribute this 298 This entailed, on the other hand, that these strong personal links between people of an equal standing, allowing pulling strings to the profit of both parties, made it difficult for an individual to assert himself despite his office. See the case of Chrodinus who reportedly refused the office of a maior domus, as he did not consider himself able to prevail due to his kinship with a majority of the members of the Austrasian elite. Fred. 3.58. Cf. also Aur., Caes. 33.



the military and the world of thought215

power to him could always be questioned. The ownership of power, in fact, could become visible for others where a man distinguished himself from the rest of a populace by displaying features that could only be acquired because a certain authority had been assigned to him.299 A man of power, and a ruler in particular, first and foremost had to make his authority tangible for his populace through his mere presence. The importance of an authority’s personal presence is documented by several reports of round trips now apparently undertaken by every holder following his accession to power.300 The same function might also be attributed to the many oaths of allegiance already mentioned that were generally requested in the course of these regal tours.301 Public appear­ ances, including military campaigns, also represented convenient occa­ sions for a ruler to overtly enforce his requests and/or rules, and thereby emphasise his authority and awe those present, as when Clovis publicly avenged an injury one of his followers had previously afflicted on him.302 A king’s presence was a most crucial factor for peace, as may be illustrated by an account provided by the late seventh century passio of Leudegar of Autun. In its hagiographical context, it reports that: When Childeric’s death was suddenly announced, those who had been con­ demned to exile on his orders returned without fear, just as when spring follows winter and poisonous snakes emerge from their caverns. A great storm arose in the fatherland, as they raged with mad fury and things were so bad that it was openly believed that the coming of the Antichrist was nigh. Those who should have been the rulers of the provinces rose up against each other – those who should have banded together to keep the peace began to challenge one another in hatred, and since no king sat firmly

299 This must not necessarily mean that a person must have earned it by merits, as in the case of people born into an important, i.e. powerful family. Cf. G. Althoff (1995), according to whom comparable demonstrative acts were foremost proofs of a man’s honour, which “in permanenten demonstrativen Akten unterstrichen wird und werden muss. Dies geschieht durch Verschwendung bei Hofhaltung, Geschenken und Belohnungen durch das Protzen mit einer herausragenden Gefolgschaft – herausragend in Zahl, Vornehmheit und Ausrüstung; es geschieht aber auch durch spektakuläre raten, etwa auf kriegerischem Felde oder auch durch spektakuläre verbale Äußerungen, die den eigenen honor hervorheben oder den der Anderen herabsetzen” (p. 64). 300 See Greg., Hist. 4.14, 4.16, 7.10. These round trips were not an exclusive characteristic of royal power: see ibid. 5.5, 8.18. 301 See also Munderic’s procedure to gain recognition as a king, Greg., Hist. 3.14. 302 Ibid. 2.27. See also, for example ibid. 2.37, 6.31. Fear was an important instrument to enforce discipline, see disciplina tamen non defuit; inde propinquo/ hoste magis timuere ducem. Sid., Carm. 2, ll. 279–80, p. 180. See also the comments in Dixon/Southern (2000), 173.

216

chapter five in the throne, each saw as right whatever he himself wished to do, and that is how they began to act, without the fear of discipline.303

A comparable effect of a ruler’s disappearance is documented by Gregory of Tours’ reporting how a certain Parthenius had been assaulted subse­ quent to Theudebert I’s death,304 or where he described the violence that followed the spreading of the news on Chilperic I’s assassination, which included the confinement of his daughter.305 The instability within postRoman society made it necessary for a ruler to maintain his authority through a constant display of presence and supremacy. A king’s mere presence, however, was often not enough. The open display of wealth, which distinguished its owner through an air of splendour, is one possible means of making one’s superiority visible – alongside the exceptional hair-style of the Merovingian kings. In earlier Roman times, the high status of men like the senators was only labelled by a purple line embroidered onto their tunica.306 J. Arce pointed out more recently that the interest in displaying status and distinction by means of expensive clothes and adornment increased in importance since late Roman times, and in particular after the expansion of Roman citizenship in the context of the Constitutio Antoniniana of the year 212 to every inhab­ itant of the empire.307 In the course of the following centuries, the elite’s accoutrement became increasingly distinctive, as documented by early medieval garments and adornment found in lavish burials, which distin­ guished those who belonged to the elite from those who did not.308 303 Igitur cum Childerici mors subito nuntiata fuisset, tunc hii qui ob eius iussionem exilii fuerant condemnati, tamquam verno tempore post hiemem solent de cavernis serpentia venenata procedere, quidam sine metu fuerunt reversi: quorum debachante furore surrexit magna turbatio patriae, ita ut manifeste crederetur adventum imminere Antichristi. Hii vero, qui rectores regionum esse debuerant, surrexerunt contra alios, et qui pacis foedere debuerant continere, odiis se invicem coeperunt lacessere; et dum rex tunc non erat stabilitus in culmine, quod unicuique rectum videbatur in propria voluntate, hoc agebant sine formidine disciplinae. Pass. Leud. 15, pp. 296–7. Transl. P. Fouracre and R.A. Gerberding (1996), 231. See also Fouracre (1998, Attitudes) suggesting that “factional rivalry could get out of hand if the palace lost the political initiative and if no leader was strong enough to control the different noble groups” (p. 65). 304 Greg., Hist. 3.36. 305 Ibid. 7.9. 306 Edmondson (2008), 27. 307 Arce (2005), 34. 308 See figure 8. As mentioned above, lavish grave-goods were less frequent in the seventh century. It is unlikely, however, that this change went back to a decrease in impor­ tance of lavish garment and accessory, as it fits much better with what is known about this period to assume that this decrease went back to a changed burial custom – if not even an increased importance of self-representation entailing that families could no more afford loosing comparable objects after every decease by leaving them in their kin’s burials.



the military and the world of thought217

Figure 8. Lavish burial findings, including a golden solidus, luxury long sword decorated with gold and garnet. Second half of the fifth century. From Planig, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany. Menghin/Périn (1997), 399, fig. 317, cat. V.4.4. Location in and image courtesy of the Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen Mannheim.

218

chapter five

Another means of making power and authority visible for all those present was to collect a preferably large group of retainers, possibly of high rank and status themselves.309 Well known are the late Roman bucellarii and the leudes or antrustiones already mentioned, which may have been likewise characterised by distinctive clothing and equipment.310 Their presence certainly augmented the prestige and standing of their lord, whose power and superiority they visualised. A similar effect may be attributed to the extant members of a regal court, the function of which has always been to represent a ruler’s power and authority.311 More than clothes or a ruler’s retinue, the court312 represented his supreme power, authority, and supremacy, be it by a high concentration of experienced and renowned men, the open display of opulent goods and lavish riches, or the splendour that emanated from all of these.313 To take the evidence provided by Gregory of Tours referring to the newly established surround­ ings of Theudebert II, a royal court could include “counts, personal ser­ vants, major-domus and tutors to serve him, and everyone else necessary for his royal household”.314 It could also include further armed men like royal officers, custodians, and pueri, as well as male and female servants and their families. Until the seventh century, these royal courts were cen­ tral places of elite culture of high prestige, willingly frequented by the young offspring of the nobility,315 which included men like the future bishops Desiderius of Noyon, Dado of Rouen, or Eligius of Reims.316

309 Cf. M. Hardt (2004) underlining that “Ansehen, Status und politischer Wirkungsgrad germanischer Großer und Könige beruhten zu einem erheblichen Maß auf dem Einfluss, der durch ihre Gefolgschaft ausgeübt wurde” (p. 236). 310 See, in particular, Sidonius’ letter to Domnitius describing with enthusiasm a com­ parable royal retinue, Sid., Epist. IV 20. 311 See, for example sic modo cuncta favent, dum prosperitate superna/ regia Caesareo proficit aula iugo./ orgine multiplici felicem saecula regem/ undique cinxerunt umina tanta ducum./ culmina tot procerum concurrunt culmen ad unum. Fort., Carm. 5.1, ll- 15–19, p. 124. 312 This does not mean that comparable courts were restricted to rulers, as suggested by Fortunatus writing to the wife of the dux Bodegisil: coniuge pervigili nituit magis aula mariti,/ floret et egregia dispositrice domus. Fort., Carm. 7.6, ll. 21–2, p. 158. 313 The prestige connected to a court did not only affect the ruler himself, but likewise those who were associated to it. See, for example persona quaedam, honore dignitatis aulice tumens. Vit. Iur. 2.10, p. 149. 314 […] comitibus, domesticis, maioribus atque nutriciis vel omnibus qui ad exercendum servitium regale erant necessarii delegatis. Greg., Hist. 9.36, p. 457. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 523. On the Merovingian court, see also Rösener (2008), 537. 315 See Hen (2007), 100–5. 316 See the letter of Desiderius addressed to his friend Dado: Maneat pristine inter nos atque illum tuum, immo nostrum Eligium inconuulsa caritas, indisiuncta, ut fuit quondam, fraternitas. Desid., Epist. 1.11, p. 30. See also the translation in Hen (20079, 105.



the military and the world of thought219

A ruler’s supremacy could be illustrated best by his demonstration of splendour by means of superabundant wealth that mirrored his status. An ideal setting was the royal banquet characterised by feasts and carous­ ing.317 Archaeological findings like drinking horns found in lavish burials had certainly been used in the context of comparable encounters.318 Royal feasting-tables were apparently set with an amount, variety, and quality of aliments meant, at the least, to correspond to the host’s stand­ ing. The guests were meant to reflect the status of the host,319 just as their status could be reflected in the context of a feast, as suggested by Sidonius Apollinaris, reporting that “[w]hen a public festival provides a banquet the last guest at the first table ranks before the first guest at the second table.”320 Although Mummolus was not a member of the royal family, a poem composed by his guest Venantius Fortunatus provides a lively impression of the nature of a comparable feast: He then arrives, with an abundant sumptuous feast:  when looked at, the food is attracting me. Huge trays of copious delicious food are brought,  the trays are tiled up like mountains, Built up on every side, in the centre a kind of valley,  to better allow the fish to make its way: It swims in oil, as if in water; fixed on a plate,  it lives, it who instead of deep water rests on the table. But before that I was also offered soft fruits,  those that are commonly called Persian. He gave himself in to drowsiness, (but I did not allow myself to be tired of  eating), then through voices assembled, then providing the treat. Soon as if I would give birth my stomach suddenly tightened, 317 Royal and non-royal banquets and feasts are mentioned, for example, in Sulp., Mart. 20.3; Sid., Carm. I 11; Greg., Hist. 3.15, 4.27, 6.13, 7.33, 8.1, 8.3, 8.5, 8.7, 8.14, 8.42, 9.11, 9.20; Greg., Mart. 96, 106; Fort., Carm. 7.5, 7.14, 7.15; Fred. 4.78. 318 See, for example Eggenstein (2008), 193, cat. 39.1. 319 See Sidonius lauding Ecdicius that tibi non daret tot pugna socios, quot solet mensa convivas. Sid., Epist. III 3.4, pp. 41–2. 320 […] sicuti cum epulum festivitas publica facit, prior est in prima mensa conviva postremus ei, qui primus fuerit in secunda. Sid., Epist. VII 12.4, p. 119. Transl. W.B. Anderson (1997), 367. See also J.N. Nelson (1990), underlining that “[d]ie Rangordung, die für die Sitzordnung an der königlichen Tafel und das Bedientwerden bei Tisch maßgeblich war, war mehr als bloße Etikette […] [die] Rangunterschiede [wurden] einerseits durch die kollektive Identität von König und Königreich (als gleichsam ausgeweitetem Hof), ausgedrückt und bekräftigt durch die Tischgenossenschaft, und andererseits durch die gemeinsame Verpflichtung der Esser gegenüber dem Ernährer überbrückt” (p. 134), and K. Bosl (1974) assuming that the “Aufnahme Adeliger in die Tischgemeinschaft kam eine ganz große gesellschaftliche Bedeutung zu, die darin bestand, daß sie eine rangzuweisende Funktion hatte” (p. 20).

220

chapter five  admiring how my belly can expand. Inside, however, thunder and various noises have roared:  the gastric organs are disarrayed by south-eastern and southern winds, […]  and without myself and within me there was a magnificent battle.321

While the food and drink served in abundance and the large number of guests, preferably of some distinction themselves, were meant to publicly improve a ruler’s reputation by emphasising his status among his guests, the receivers were expected to accept and consume a maximum. This is suggested by Caesarius of Arles, according to whom many explained immoderate supply in food and drink offered at comparable occasions by stressing: “‘My friend does not appreciate if I do not give him as much as he desires when I invite him to a feast’.”322 Comparable gatherings were accompanied by music323 and various spectacles like animal baiting.324 On some representative occasions, the king’s elevated status was also made manifest by sitting on a throne.325 Experiences in the context of warfare were certainly common topics of conversation among the guests of comparable feasts. Military success and 321 […] huc ergo adveniens, epulis expletus opimis:/quem vidisse, mihi constitit esse cibum./ fercula magna quidem dapibus cumulata benignis,/ ac si colle tumens, discus onustus erat:/ undique montis opus, medium quasi vallis habebat,/ quo meliore via piscis agebat iter./ ille natans oleum, pro undis, pro caespite discum/ incoluit, cui pro gurgite mensa fuit./ attamen ante aliud data sunt mihi mitia poma,/ Persica quae vulgi nomine dicta sonant./ lassavit dando, (sed non ego lassor edendo)/ vocibus hinc cogens, hinc tribuendo dapes./ mox quasi parturiens subito me ventre tetendi,/ admirans uterum sic tumuisse meum./ intus enim tonitrus vario rumore fremebat,/ viscera conturbans Eurus et Auster erat./ […] et sine me mecum pugna superba fuit. Fort., Carm. 7.14, ll. 15–30 and 36, pp. 169–70. See also denique dum praesunt reges in sedibus aulae/ ac mensae officio prandia festa colunt,/ retibus inspicitur quo salmo fasce levatur. Fort., Carm. 10.9, ll. 69–71, pp. 243–4; ‘In omnibus, quae mandi debent in mensis dominorum, valde scitus sum operari, nec metuo, quod repperire possit similis mei in gac scientia. Verum enim dico tibi, quia, etiam si regi epulum cupias praeparare, fercula regalia conponere possum, ne quisquam a me melius’. Greg., Hist. 3.15, p. 113. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 176. See also the carousing in Greg., Hist. 6.13. Cf. Hen (1995), 246–7. 322 ‘Ingratum habeo amicum meum, si, quotiens illum ad convivum revocavero, potum ei quantum voluerit ipse non dedero’. Caes., Serm. 46.4, p. 362. See also Qui ebriosos et luxuriosos amlius quam opportet cogent bibere. Ibid. 46.4, p. 364, and ibid. 46.1, 47.1, 73.3; assiduis epulis saturas, venerande, catervas,/ et repletus abit qui tua tecta petit. Fort., Carm. 7.5, ll. 37–8, p. 157. 323 See Greg., Hist. 8.3. The musician sent by the Gothic king Theoderic to Clovis was also certainly supposed not least to perform in the context of the king’s feats: Citharoedum etiam arte sua doctum pariter destinavimus expetitum. Cass., Var. 2.41, p. 73. 324 See, for example Greg., Hist. 8.36. 325 See Guntramn Boso quoted with the words reportedly addressed to king Guntramn ‘Tu […] dominus et rex regali in solio resedis, et nullus tibi ad ea quae loqueris ausus est respondere. […]’. Greg., Hist. 7.14, p. 335. See also the throne attributed to Dagobert I, see Frings (2008), cat. nr. 162, p. 284.



the military and the world of thought221

victory, in particular, was another feature that had become a most deci­ sive factor in a ruler’s power. Victory not only legitimised a battle or the victorious party, as assessed above, but first and foremost it confirmed or consolidated the authority of the successful military leader, i.e. his potestas.326 A victory over foreign peoples, furthermore, engendered the fear or at least the respect of these people327 and could attract new allies.328 Kings who stood in the front line with their men to engage in man-to-man combat329 were recognised and certainly esteemed for their courage. Most significant were recurrent military achievements against external enemies,330 that could lead to such praise as when Cyprian referred to Clovis as “most victorious king”.331 The significance of victory in the con­ text of power and authority is documented in the second panegyric Venantius Fortunatus addressed to king Sigibert I, emphasising: O lordly Sigibert, glorious in splendid triumphs, on one side fresh virtue her­ alds you, on the other your lineage. Your victory, once won, took wing, and 326 See Goetz (2007), 284. See also, for example, non alienam ab eo Dei uoluntatem uideri, penes quem tam incredibili euentu uictoria fuisset. Sulp., Mart. 20.3, p. 129, and T. Scharff (2009), underlining that “Herrschaft basiert auf von Gott geschenkten mil­ itärischen Triumpfen und wird durch sie gerechtfertigt […]. Auch ihren Bestand muss immer wieder durch Siege gesichert werden.” (p. 459). 327 See te superesse uirum./ ne ruat armatus per Gallica rura rebellis,/ nomine victons hic es et ampla tegis:/ quem Geta, Vasco tremunt, Danus, Euthio, Saxo, Britannus,/ cum patre quos acie te domitasse patet./ terror [es] extremis Fresonibus atque Suebis,/ qui neque bella parant, sed tua frena rogant./ omnibus his datus es timor illo iudice campo,/ et terrore nouo factus es altus amor. Fort., Carm. 9.1, ll.70–8, p. 203. See also Fred. 4.58. 328 See Greg., Hist. 2.32. 329 See Sigyberthus gentes illas adducens. Greg., Hist. 4.49, p. 185. 330 See T. Scharff (2009), underlining that “Herrschaft […] muss immer wieder durch Siege gesichert werden. […] der Herrscher [hat] permanent seine grundsätzliche Befähigung zur erfolgreichen Kriegsführung unter Beweis zu stellen” (p. 459). See also idem (2004), 478. Comparably, G. Halsall (2003, Warfare) suggests that “[s]uccessful raids demonstrated the war-leader’s military competence, which was a principal requisite of good lordship and good kingship” (p. 136). See also non alienam ab eo Dei uoluntatem uideri, penes quem tam incredibili euentu uictoria. Sulp., Mart. 20.3, p. 129. Cf. M. Kleinen (2007, 82–3), suggesting implicitly that, at least in later centuries, it was crucial that a com­ parable battle was fought with no army having the edge over the other in order to allow a potential victory being valuable. See also Leyser (1994), 190; Gerberding (1987), 162; Bosl (1974), 9–11; Schlesinger (1963), 84. 331 Alarico rege a victoriosissimo rege Chlodoveo in certamine perempto. Cypr., Caes. 1.28, p. 467. Transl. W.E. Klingshern (1994, Making), 22. See also, for example, on other kings magistro militum Chilperico, victoriosissimo viro. Sid., Epist. V 6.2, p. 81; Chlothacharius tamen rex victor abscessit. Mar., Chron. a. 555, p. 236; nomine victoris. Fort., Carm. 9.1, l. 72, p. 203; Victor deinde Alamannos. Jon., Ved. 2, p. 407; rex victor. LHF 31, p. 293; ibid. 41, p. 314. Referring to non-royal military leaders Multa enim Mummolus bella gessit, in quibus victur extetit. Greg., Hist. 4.45, p. 180; Ferratae tunicae sudasti pondere victor. Fort., Carm. 7.7, l. 55, p. 160. See also vir magnificus Aetius. Const., Germ. 28, p. 271.

222

chapter five flew, noising your successes abroad. The Thuringian with the Saxon, brood­ ing on their destruction, cry back and forth that so many men have perished to the glory of one man. Because you then went on foot in front of the battle line, ahead of all, now you have cause for kings to follow you.332

According to Fortunatus, Sigibert’s personal involvement and especially his success in war increased his reputation and standing throughout his own realm and abroad, instigating men of even equal status to follow him.333 Victory thus represented not only an essential legitimising factor, but likewise had an effect of attraction, both being basic constituents of power.334 That the prestige of a comparable success was also important for the power of other members of the elite who, after Clovis, reportedly more and more frequently led their king’s armies,335 is confirmed by the case of the Thuringian dux Radulf. As already alluded to above, his suc­ cesses against the Wends reportedly made him powerful enough to mis­ behave against men of a similar standing and finally revolt against his own king.336 The most tangible means of allowing subordinated people to partake in the fruits of a ruler’s successes was to offer gifts.337 These could include 332 Sigibercthe potens, generosis clare triumphis,/ hinc nova te virtus praedicat, inde genus./ cuius rapta semel sumpsit Victoria pinnas/ et tua vulgando prospera facta volat. Saxone Thorino resonat, sua damna moventes,/ unius ad laudem tot cecidisse viros./ quod tunc ante aciem pedibus prior omnibus isti,/ hinc modo te reges unde sequantur habes. Fort., Carm. 6.1a, ll. 7–15, pp. 129–30. Slightly altered version of the translation given by J. George (1995), 32. 333 K.R. Dixon and Southern (2000) established that, already in Roman times, “[o]ne of the most respected attributes a commander could possess was his willingness to endure the privations of the common soldier”, underlining that “[c]ommanders who possessed this quality could bring out the very best in their men, since a stronger bond would be formed, resulting in the soldiers feeling a greater sense of personal, rather than profes­ sional, obligation towards their officer and the aims he wished to achieve.” (p. 176). The earlier Frankish kings virtually all lead their armies on their own, in particular Clovis and his sons, see Greg., Hist. 2.27, 2.32, 2.37, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.32, 4.10, 4.17, 4.23, 4.29, 4.30, 4.49, 4.50, 4.51. The third generation is less frequently reported to have headed an army, see ibid. 3.3, 3.7, 3.11, 3.21, 3.28, 4.6, 4.23, 4.49, 5.2, 5.3. See also A. Demandt (1980, 629–30), underlining that in Late Antiquity the link between power and soldiers became more important up to the point that army leaders had the power to enthrone an emperor of their own choice. Cf. also Lee (2007), 35–6. 334 Cf. G. Halsall (2003, Warfare), underlining that “martial ability and victory over enemies were central to so many early medieval social identities” (p. 160). 335 See, for example Greg., Hist. 4.30, 4.42, 4.44, 4.45, 4.47, 4.50, 5.13, 5.29, 6.12, 6.31, 7.13, 7.38, 8.30, 9.12, 10.3, 10.9; Greg., Patr. 4.2; Greg., Mart. 59. 336 Fred. 4.77. 337 See, for example Hannig (1988); Curta (2006); Gerberding (1987), 165–6. On the sig­ nificance of gift-giving in a royal context, see Venantius Fortunatus on the queen Radegund who regali more, ad propria cum redirent, sine munere non laxaret. Fort., Rad. 43, p. 43. See



the military and the world of thought223

adornment, weapons,338 or clothes,339 and sometimes even individually manufactured objects,340 generally of a worth adapted to the status of both the receiver and the generous giver. To demonstrate superiority in this ‘contest of generosity’,341 it was crucial to receive less than give in return.342 This may be illustrated by Gregory’s account of Clovis’ victory over the Goths, when: Letters reached Clovis from the Emperor Anastasius to confer the consulate on him. In Saint Martin’s church he stood clad in a purple tunic and the military mantle, and he crowned himself with a diadem. He then rode out on his horse and with his own hand showered gold and silver coins among the people present all the way from the doorway, of Saint Martin’s church to Tours cathedral. From that day on he was called Consul or Augustus.343

also O. Schmitt (2005), assessing that the fact that leadership foremost depended on mili­ tary success and lavishness represents a step back to what he calls ‘tribal warfare’. 338 Lebedynsky (2001), 26. 339 See, for example Nam de rebus bonis, tam de armis quam de vestibus vel reliquis ornamentis, quod regem habere decet, terna ei paria condonavit, similiter et de equitibus atque catinis. Greg., Hist. 3.24, p. 123. See also Hardt (1998), 279; Claude (1973), 22–3. See also Theuws/Alkemade (2000), 468. 340 See the example of the ring of ‘Graifarius’, in regards to which R. Kaiser (1994) sug­ gests that “nichts scheint indessen dagegen zu sprechen, ihn als einen Ring anzusehen, den der König Gunthram Vaefarius mit dem Wunsch utere felix schenkte, um diesen seinen dux in politisch-militärisch gefährdetem Gebiet durch ein ehrendes Geschenk stärker an sich zu binden” (p. 281). 341 See J. Hannig (1988), assessing that “[d]ie vielbezeugte Größe und Pracht der Geschenke ist Element einer aristokratisch-agonalen Lebensform, durch die ein Wettstreit der Freigebigkeit […] jene ökonomische und herrschaftliche Potenz sinnfällig vor Augen geführt wird, gegen die anzutreten von vornherein als chancenlos erscheinen mußte.” (p. 20). 342 See M. Hardt (1998, 302), underlining that “[o]pulent endowments from the king to his army and followers run like a red thread through the history of the Early Middle Ages”(p. 278), adding that “[g]iving means providing evidence of superiority, showing that one is more and ranks higher” (p. 279). Similar Althoff (1993), 40. See also J. Hannig (1988), suggesting that “Freigebigkeit zeichnet den Aristokraten aus, Geiz ist neben der Feigheit sein größter Fehler” (p. 17) and underlining that “nur wer an diesem Austauschsystem teil­ zunehmen in der Lage ist, kann das Spiel der Macht mitspielen, in dessen Zentrum der König, als der mächtigste und freigebigste Verschwender glänzt” (p. 37); F. Curta (2006), suggesting that the aim of comparable strategies was “to put the other lastingly in debt, to make him lose face in public, while at the same time proclaiming one’s own superiority” (p. 676). 343 Igitur ab Anastasio imperatore codecillos de consolate accepit, et in basilica beati Martini tunica blattea indutus et clamide, inponens vertice diademam. Tunc ascenso equite, aurum argentumque in itinere illo, quod inter portam atrii et eclesiam civitatis est, praesentibus populis manu propria spargens, voluntate benignissima erogavit, et ab ea die tamquam consul aut augustus est vocitatus. Greg., Hist. 2.38, pp. 88–9. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 154.

224

chapter five

The new ruler at the head of his people344 not only distinguished himself from the rest of the population through his new title,345 dress, and adorn­ ment, he also demonstrated his supremacy by munificence. The coins he distributed possibly came from the plunder made in the course of the same campaign. The donation of presents from war-booty not only emphasised his power, but was tangible evidence of his recent success as a military leader.346 The allocation of gifts, just as the assignment of offices347 or other privileges,348 was also important as a means of estab­ lishing dependency or rewarding outstanding deeds, as when the cham­ berlain Berthar received Theudebert II’s horse and equipment as a reward for having captured the king.349 Unsurprisingly, riches represented a piv­ otal element of late Roman and early medieval rulership.350 The seventhand eighth-century sources in particular leave no doubt that power was unthinkable without the necessary material resources collected by each ruler in a so-called thesaurus.351 The first step of every potentate planning to take over power was therefore to acquire possession of a large amount

344 See Remigius of Reims in his letter to Clovis: Populorum caput estis et regimen sustinetis. Epist. Aus. 1, p. 112. See also Greg., Hist. 2.34. 345 H. Castritius (2010, 119–20) more recently underlined that Clovis had become con­ sul, and this not on an honorary basis. 346 See Prietzel (2006), 109–118; Lebedynsky (2001), 25. 347 See above, and rex Childebercthus crescens te crescere cogat:/ qui modo dat comitis, det tibi dona ducis. Fort., Carm. 10.16, ll. 11–12, p. 249. 348 See most of all the concessions mentioned above that Chlothar II made in 614 in the context of the Edict of Paris to the benefit of his nobility as a reward for their assistance. 349 Fred. 4.38. 350 Hardt (2004), 21; (1998), 279–80. On possible sources of income of the Merovingian kings, see Hendy (1988), 37. 351 See, in particular Tinsaurum quod suffecerit filium tradens, condigne, ut decuit, eum uius culmine sublimavit. Fred. 4.75, p. 159. See also the study of M. Hardt (2004), underlin­ ing that “[d]ie Schätze der gentilen Könige und die Schatzhäuser der römischen Kaiser ähnelten sich nicht nur dadurch, daß die zeitgleiche Historiographie sie mit dem gleichen Terminus technicus, dem Wort thesaurus, bezeichneten, sondern auch durch Inhalt und Funktion” (p. 301) to conclude that “eine gut gefüllte Schatzkammer eine der wichtig­ sten Voraussetzungen für eine erfolgreiche Königs- und Fürstenherrschaft in allen sich bildenden und konsolidierenden regna auf vormals römischem Reichsgebiet, aber auch für die Könige und gentilen Fürsten an dessen Peripherie, außerhalb der früheren Reichsgrenzen, darstellte” (p. 300). The importance of the treasure as an indispensable feature of early medieval rulership is supported by the assessment made by R.A. Gerberding (1987) that “the LHF-author added [eight times] a mention of trea­ sure or booty to Gregory’s text in the various campaigns of the Franci or in the dealings of their kings” (p. 34), adding that “[t]he whole of LHF 13 with the exception of its last sen­ tence, is an addition to Gregory’s Historiae. The chapter is the story of the successful attempt of Aurelian to claim Clotild’s treasure from her uncle King Gundobad of Burgundy” (p. 35).



the military and the world of thought225

of riches to constitute such a treasury352 and, congruently, any takeover of power, including the defeat of an enemy, accompanied the annexation of the respective treasury.353 To subsume, fifth- to seventh-century strategies aiming at establishing and/or safeguarding a ruler’s authority through the demonstration of superiority all include the idea of impressing those present and, if possi­ ble, those absent, through the display of outstanding characteristics, skills, or achievements. In times of a decreasing quality of life, a certain air of splendour as it emanated from successful war, prestigious clothing, large retinues, or the demonstration of superabundance certainly did not fail to impress and through this be efficacious as means to gain the renown and esteem that was necessary to be considered powerful. 3.2. Association and Subjugation Beyond these strategies to maintain power and authority at the highest levels, a broad spectrum of strategies and rituals emerged that primarily aimed at establishing and ensuring a state of mutual consensus and stability. It has been argued above that in a world where the written word slowly but gradually lost its significance as the importance of interpersonal agreements grew – at least in a secular context354 – rituals were more and more commonly used to establish and strengthen indis­ pensable relations.355 The means used for these purposes did not differ 352 See, for example Fred. 2.53, 4.90; Pass. Leud. 4. 28; LHF 47. M. Hardt (2004) likewise concludes that “Herrschaftsübernahme und Zugriff auf den Schatz gehörten in der Sicht der Zeit untrennbar zusammen” (p. 33). 353 Greg., Hist. 2.37. Fred. 4.42, 4.44, 4.67. On possible proveniences of comparable trea­ sures, see Hardt (1998), 272–3. 354 Cf. J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz (2007, Violence), underlining that “Gregory in fact wit­ nessed the prevalence of mentality one would expect to find in a society whose law and order depended on the widespread readiness of individuals to take the law into their own hands” (p. 43). 355 Cf. G. Althoff (1993) establishing that “in der Zeit des Mittelalters [dominierten] in der Öffentlichkeit Akte nonverbaler Kommunikation, Akte, die wir mit den Begriffen Rituale oder Zeremoniell belegen, in denen etwas gezeigt, zur Schau gestellt, zur Anschauung gebracht wurde” (p. 28), and J. Schmitt (1991) suggesting that “medieval ideas about gestures, their functions, and their values may be summarised according to three notions. First, the notion of expressivity. Gestures were considered expressions of the inner movements of the soul, of feelings, of the moral values of individuals. […] A second axis consisted of what today we call non-verbal communication. […] The third axis was con­ cerned with efficacy, with its double meaning: the practical efficacy of technical gestures (sawing, moving, writing, etc.) and the symbolic efficacy of political or sacramental ritu­ als.” (pp. 64–5). See also, for example, the ritualised procedure described in Lex Sal. 50.2–3.

226

chapter five

intrinsically from those used to demonstrate supremacy. They likewise included, for example, mutual gift exchange, common meals, and the swearing of oaths. Even if the reciprocal donation of presents is a practice that is best known in regard to the highest social stratum, there is no rea­ son to doubt that comparable procedures were just as common among the lower born. Presents could be mutually exchanged either in a ritual context aiming at establishing an amicable relation between two individ­ uals (amicitiam), as the bishop Praetextus reportedly confessed to have done to the benefit of the prince Merovech,356 or to fix a mutual agree­ ment, as when Chilperic I and Guntramn decided to attack their brother Sigibert I.357 More or less lavish communal meals, including royal ban­ quets, not only represented an ideal setting for elitist self-representation but also an occasion to celebrate mutual kindliness358 or fix a state of con­ sent. Such an occasion was often accompanied by the exchange of gifts, as when Guntramn and Childebert II mutually agreed to be their respective successors in case of the death of one of them.359 Unsurprisingly, refusing to accept an invitation to a meal, as a certain man from the upper elite of Rouen reportedly attempted with Queen Fredegund,360 could easily be understood as an offense.361 In a world where mutual agreement, friendship, and a generally benevolent environment had become essential prerequisites to prospe­ rity, assertions of fidelity (as already mentioned in relation to the king’s trusted) had become an important means of guaranteeing reciprocal assistance.362 Comparable procedures were not only known in the 356 Greg., Hist. 5.18. F. Curta (2006) likewise establishes, that “gift giving is typically interpreted as a form of creating and maintaining, by means of reciprocity, bonds of friendship.” (p. 675). Similar Hannig (1998), 17. See also Dumézil (2007), 573. 357 Greg., Hist. 4.50. See also ibid. 3.15, 6.31, 7.38. 358 See, for example Greg., Hist. 2.35, 8.2. See also Althoff (1993), 28. Cf. Dumézil (2007), 569. 359 Greg., Hist. 5.17. Similar ibid. 5.2, 5.18, 9.11, 10.28. See also Hannig (1998), 16. 360 Ibid. 8.31. 361 Cf. G. Althoff (1993), underlining that “[m]it dem gemeinsamen Essen und wohl noch wichtiger Trinken zeigte man seine Bereitschaft zu friedlich-freundschaftlichem Verhältnis zu dem Partner” (p. 39). That the refusal of a communal dinner did not repre­ sent an offense in every case is suggested by Fred. 4.78. 362 A. Demandt (1998) implicitly suggests that a comparable person-centred fidelity foremost went back to Germanic origins. He assesses that “[d]ie Germanen erachteten ihre Bindung spätestens beim Tod des betreffenden Kaisers für gelöst und wurden dafür von den Römern als treulos erklärt.” (p. 237). See also the oaths given to underpin a given promise as found in Greg., Hist. 3.14, 5.18, 5.25, 9.18. That even an oath of mutual loyalty did not always guarantee that a peaceable state of fact could be maintained is suggested, for example, by Inter Valentinianum Augustum et Aetium patricium post promissae invicem fidei sacramenta, post pactum de coniunctione follorum, dirae inimicitiae convaluerunt. Prosp., Chron. a. 454, p. 483.



the military and the world of thought227

context of power and authority alone, but appear to have been most com­ mon in the post-Roman world. Gregory of Tours, for example, recounted how a certain Claudius (perfidiously) swore fidelity to the cubicularius Eberulf: both “walked up and down the forecourt of the church-house, swearing faith and friendship to each other, with a running exchange of oaths.”363 Relations based on fidelity (fides) were most significant to the establishment of authority, which is why even powerful men were dis­ posed to offer lavish gifts in return.364 In sources like the Histories of Gregory of Tours or the Chronicle of Fredegar, fidelity appears as a central quality,365 whereas perfidiousness (perfidia) is characterised as particu­ larly despicable.366 A formulary found in the Marculf collection confirms the importance of fides by mentioning it alongside utilitas as a major cri­ terion for the appointment of royal officers.367 The same is true in regard to friendship (amicitia), which was a major issue from Roman times onward.368 Friendships established between men generally implied the willingness to provide mutual assistance369 and became of growing significance as a theme, in particular in the narra­ tive sources. A good example is the apparent friendship between the war­ lords Ursio and Berthefred recorded by Gregory of Tours. When both were subdued by a royal host and the responsible commander announced that 363 Postquam autem convivium est finitum, ipse simul ac Claudius per atrium domus basilicae deambulare aceperunt, sibi invicem fidem ac caritatem sacramentis intercurrentibus promittentes. Greg., Hist. 7.29, p. 348. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 410. 364 See, for example Greg., Hist. 2.42. See also D. Claude (1973), underlining that “[d]ie Treue der ,,Getreuen” musste oft mit Geschenken gestärkt werden” (p. 12), providing fur­ ther evidence. 365 See, for example Greg., Hist. 3.4, 7.8; Fred. 2.57, 3.11, 3.71, 4.28, 4.61. See also quae tibi conmisit sensit ubique fidem. Fort., Carm. 7.17, l. 14, p. 172; Vit. Maur. praef., 15; Dado., Elig. 1.6. 17, and G.A. Gerberding (1987), underlining that “[a]nother heroic trait which perme­ ates the LHF is the importance of personal loyalty” (p. 165). Oaths of fidelity were also an important subject in contemporary legal stipulations, see Lex Sal. 50.1–3. 366 See, for example ‘Merito […] tale aurum accepit, qui domino suo ad mortem propria voluntate deducit’. Greg., Hist. 2.42, p. 93; ‘Illum perfidium Gundobadum relinquens, tua gloriae expeti’. Fred. 3.23, p. 102. See also Demandt (1980), 632; and Graus (1965), 359–60, pro­ viding further evidence. 367 Ergo dum et fidum et utilitatem tuam videmur habere conpertam, ideo tibi accionem comitiae, ducatus aut patriciatus in pago illo, quem antecessor tuos illi usque nunc. Form. Marc. 1.8, p. 47. 368 See, for example N. Gradowicz-Pancer (1996) on late Roman friendship, being “beaucoup plus large que le sens que nous lui attribuons aujourd’hui. C’est une sorte de fraternité culturelle et sociale, sous-jacente de la solidarité familiale et formant en dessous d’elle un filet de sauvetage. […] L’amitié, tout comme le patrimoine foncier et les titres de noblesse, est un héritage qu’il s’agit d’entretenir. […] elle fonctionne comme garantie de reconnaissance et de soutien […] occupe[..] une place de premier choix dans les relations humaines des Gallo-romains.” (pp. 284–5). 369 Cf. Gradowicz-Pancer (1996), 285–7. See also, for example Greg., Hist. 5.16.

228

chapter five

only Ursio’s life would be taken, Berthefred is reported to have declared, “I will never abandon Ursio […] until death comes to tear me from him.”370 That friendship included mutual help is also confirmed by the account previously mentioned of Berthar, who perfidiously offered pro­ tection to his old friend Manaulf by inviting him to come under his shield.371 The same idea is also included where Wiomad reportedly plot­ ted in favour of his friend and King Childeric I,372 and appears more explicitly where Gregory reported that a man could persuade another to entrust to him some stolen jewels by convincing him that he had friends in many regions, which would make his house a safe place.373 Although the sixth- to seventh-century sources do not mention blood brotherhood, as known in earlier and later times,374 it appears as if similar relationships were, nevertheless, established by means of other rituals. The warlord Mummolus and the usurper Gundovald, for example, apparently con­ cluded friendship by a mutual exchange of swords, an act that might have been accompanied by an oath.375 Friendship also implied the require­ ment of mutual trust, as suggested by a peculiar habit reported by Gregory of Tours. According to him, the former enemies Chramnesind and Sichar not only used to regularly invite each other to a meal after having settled their dispute and established friendship, but used to share the same bed to sleep.376 The communal drinking, which appears as a constitutional component of comparable festivities, likewise represented an implicit demonstration of trust and friendship, as the loss of full control among enemies – as when falling asleep following a comparable carousal – could lead to mortal peril.377 370 ‘Nisi morte devellar ab eo, numquam a me relinquitur’. Greg., Hist. 9.9, p. 424. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 491. 371 Fred. 4.90. 372 LHF 7. 373 ‘Ego sum’, inquid, ‘homo, cui in diversis regionibus multi habentur amici, et est mihi domus magna atque secreta. […]’. Greg., Mart. 91, p. 549. See also, for example Grimoaldus com Chuniberto pontefice se in amiciciam constringens, ceperat cogitare, quo ordine Otto de palacio aegiceretur, et gradum patris Grimoaldus adsumeret. Fred. 4.86, p. 164. 374 See Oschema (2006), 279–83. 375 Cf. Greg., Hist. 7.29. 376 Greg., Hist. 9.19. The same behaviour is also reported in ibid. 6.13. See also Goetz (2010), 39; Althoff (1993), 41. 377 See Y. Hen (1995), underlining that drinking “was a symbolic act which confirmed compacts, agreements and friendships, and which was an act of trust and confidence in the new partner. Sensible people let themselves drink without limits only when they know that they are safe, and thus drinking to an agreement and security in the company of per­ son […] drinking was an expression of friendship, brotherhood and loyalty.” (pp. 242–3) and supposing that drinking was “a rival to Christianity in creating social structures and loyalties” (p. 247).



the military and the world of thought229

Further elements related to mutual trust and the exposition of togeth­ erness are the increasingly documented meetings and conventions that were arranged to deliberate upon current issues. The demonstration of a certain equality and reliance became particularly important to the later Merovingian kings whose power had become increasingly dependent on the good will of the members of their realm’s highest social stratum. This is documented by several consultations of rulers with their trusted, including laws issued by kings which confirmed that they had been drawn up in agreement with the members of the elite.378 In late Merovingian times, kings ceased to act exclusively on their own behalf.379 They were increasingly assisted by third parties with the function of acting as advisors, as when Dagobert I agreed to cede some minor territories to his bother Charibert.380 The support of powerful men thus became 378 See, for example postmodum cum obtimatibus populi nostri inpensius de causa tractantes. Lex Gund. 53.1, p. 87; Dictauerunt Salicam legem per proceris ipsius gentes, qui tunc tempore eiusdem aderant rectores. Lex Sal. Prol. 2, p. 4; cum nostris optimatibus pertractavimus. Cap. 7.prologus, p. 15; consilium Francorum Dagobertus Baioariis iobet. Fred. 4.72, p. 57; consilio Neustrasiorum eorumque admonicione. Fred. 4.76, p. 159. Cf. G.A. Gerberding (1987) assuming that “[c]onsilium referred to the institution where the Franci came together for formal deliberation. It could mean that meeting itself, the course of action decided there or the people or faction involved. Consilium was a right jealously guarded by the Franci; it was the mechanism by which they ruled. According to the LHF-author, the Franci’s rule by consilium was even more ancient than their rule by kings.“(p. 168). On the other hand, J. Hannig (1982) underlines that “[e]in ‚Recht an politischer Mitwirkung’, das als Ausfluss adeliger Standesqualität mit consensus- oder consilium-geben zu verste­ hen wäre, ist für Gregors Werk nicht herauszulesen” (p. 12). 379 See J. Hannig (1982) speaking of “das Miteinander von königlicher Gewalt und adeliger Herrschaft. Der Adel, die politische Führungsschicht eines Teilreiches, erscheint als ratgebende, mitentscheidende Instanz die politisch legitimierend neben dem König handelt” (pp. 123–4); see also ibid. 127. 380 […] consilio sapientibus usus. Fred. 4.57, p. 149. See also Dado, Elig. 1.14. Counsel was not only provided to kings, but also to other politically important men: see for example Pass. Leud. 20; Cont. 5. Apart from members of the secular elite kings had men at their disposal whose function apparently more specifically was to advise them. See, for example Greg., Hist. 2.42, 6.19; Jon., Col. 2.50; Fred. 2.58, 4.62. On the importance of counsellors in late Merovingian time, see modo opportet te, ut et sacerdotes audias et consiliarios seniores diligas simulque et illum, qui post te palatium tuum regit, et ad eorum doctrinam, quam tibi indicant, vigilanter adtendas, quia vulgari sermone ita dicitur: ‘Qui cum pluribus consiliatur, solus non peccat’. Dignum est etiam, ut personarum maturam aetatem et consilium habentium non surdus auditor fias, sed claro moderamine ipsos audias. Epist. Coll. 15, p. 458. See also J. Hannig (1982), underlining that “[i]n den hagiographischen Quellen vorwiegend des 7. Jahrhunderts jedoch ändert sich das Bild, zunehmend werden König und (Hof-)Adel in Eins gesehen, aufeinanderbezogen, […]. Es steht außer Zweifel, dass der fränkischmerowingische König aus dem Kreis seiner Hofleute, seines palatiums und seiner Umgebung, beraten wurde. Eine Art ‘Hofrat’, ein Kreis engster Gefolgsleute, ein mehr oder weniger geschlossenes Kollegium vertrauter Ratgeber, scheint in den Quellen immer wie­ der auf” (p. 112).

230

chapter five

increasingly important to legitimise and enforce authority, which once more confirms the significance of inter-personal relations in Merovingian society. Relations such as these, however, were primarily concluded between men of equal status. To those who were not part of the royal family, it was just as important to subordinate to those who stood higher than they did and thus ensure their benevolence. The poems of Venantius Fortunatus include several statements that emphasise that even for the members of the highest social stratum the benevolence of a king was a decisive factor in their status and influence.381 As kings tended to annihilate those who became too powerful or strove to become so,382 it was most crucial for an individual to demonstrate his subjugation.383 To a majority of people it was therefore vital to adapt their behaviour and self-representation to their inferior position. The assumption that contemporaries had clear ideas and expectations about how a subordinate person should behave is documented, for example, by sources speaking of the relation between father and son. A son standing up to his own father was consistently criti­ cised for doing so. The Life of Eligius of Noyon, for example, explicitly stated that contemporaries shared the conviction that it was wrong for a child to judge his father.384 Subordination to the powerful appears even more natural at a lower social stratum. Gregory of Tours, for example, reported that when Theuderic I’s confidant Sigivald was in Clermont, he: […] did a great amount of harm there. He made off with the personal prop­ erty of many people, while his dependants committed a long series of thefts, murders, assaults and other crimes, but no one dared to complain openly.385

Despite the crimes committed by Sigivald, the people of Clermont did not dare to face him, not least as they were apparently terrified by the damage 381 See, for example Theudericus ovans ornavit honore tribunum. Fort., Carm. 7.16, l. 17; rite excellens rex Gunthechramnus honores/ maius adhuc debet, qui tibi magna dedit. Ibid. 7.25, ll. 11–12, p. 177. See also Greg., Hist. 4.42; Greg., Jul. 8; Althoff (1993), 40. 382 See, for example, the case of Ursio and Berthefred already mentioned, Greg., Hist. 3.14, 9.9, 9.19; Fred. 4.8. 383 See, for example, the bishop of Périgueux accused by the usurper Gundovald for having tunc iniuriatum reliquid, pro eo quod susceptus ad eodem honorifice non fuisset. Greg., Hist. 7.26, p. 345. 384 […] non esse rectum credi filium super patrem iudicabant. Dado, Elig. 2.62, p. 732. See the similar case of Chlothar I’s son Chramn, Greg., Hist. 4.16, 4.17; Mar., Chron. a. 560. See also ‘Non potest persona inferior super sacerdotem credi […]’. Greg., Hist. 5.49, p. 261. 385 Sigivaldus autem cum in Arverno habitaret, multa mala in ea faciebat. Nam et res diversorum pervadebat, et servi eius non desistebant a furtis, homicidiis ac superventis diversisque sceleribus, nec ullus muttiri ausus erat coram eis. Greg., Hist. 3.16, p. 116. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 179.



the military and the world of thought231

he and his men could inflict upon them. A comparably obedient attitude characterised the behaviour of the inhabitants of Tours when they were requested to give oaths of loyalty to Guntramn’s counts, as they concluded that it was “better for them to submit to King Guntramn for the time being, rather than to have all their possessions destroyed by fire and sword.”386 Subordination could also represent a last resort in case of mor­ tal peril, as in the case of the Turonian count Leudast of Tours when he offended Queen Fredegund. Hoping for rehabilitation, he consecutively threw himself at the feet of her husband Chilperic I and also his queen – although without success.387 The sources also contain mentions of more ritualised procedures aim­ ing at demonstrating a state of inferiority. Among the oaths of allegiance so frequently reported in association with the taking over of a civitas or region, or directly given to a ruler,388 the Chronicle of Fredegar recounts a peculiar ritual reportedly executed in the context of a peace established between Clovis I and his rival Alaric. According to the chronicle, the Gothic king agreed to touch the beard of the Frankish ruler, which implied that Clovis had become his patron.389 A second ritual mentioned by the same source implies that Chrodinus demonstrated his aptitude to serve the maior domus Gogo by wearing the latter’s baldric around his neck.390 This section confirms the importance of inter-personal relations becoming a constitutional feature of post-Roman society. It was most essential for an individual to adapt his appearance and behaviour to both his status in society and his situation relative to other individuals, whereas friendships and other relations characterised by mutual trust and imply­ ing the obligation to mutual assistance had apparently become crucial. 386 […] dicentes, melius sibi esse ad tempus Gunthchramno rege subdi quam cuncta incendio ac ferro vastari. Greg., Hist. 7.12, p. 333. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 395–6. See also ibid. 7.13, 7.24. 387 Greg., Hist. 6.32. See also ibid. 5.18 and Caes., Serm. 77.3. 388 See above. 389 Quadam vicem Chlodoveus rex Francorum et Alaricus rex Gothorum, qui sedem Tolosa habebat, post multa prilia, quae invicem gesserant, intercedentes legatus, cum pacem inire coepissent huius convenentiae, ut Alaricus barbam tangerit Chlodovei, effectus ille patrenus, perpetuam ab invicem pacem servarint, et ad huius placita coniunctione nec Francos nec Gothos armatus paenitus non accederit, aestatuentes diem ad locum designatum ab invicem. Fred. 2.58, p. 82. A comparably peculiar depiction of a similar ritual is known from a manuscript from the late eleventh or early twelfth century kept today under the signature ‘Latin 2819’ in the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris: see AschehougClauteaux (2008). 390 […] Chrodinus ad menisterium, bractile Gogonem in collum tenens. Fred. 3.59, p. 109. Regarding the word bractile, I follow the translation suggested by A. Kusternig, in Wolfram/ Kusternig (1982), 131.

232

chapter five

3.3. Summary This survey of the requirements and the prerequisites that men of differ­ ent social status were expected to comply with, in order to meet the role that was attributed to them, shows that late Roman and early medieval society, in particular, was primarily characterised by inter-personal rela­ tions. A gradual but drastic social change must have taken place. Personal contact and perceived power gradually prevailed over an abstract exer­ cise of a delegated authority. A large set of procedures and rituals were at hand allowing an individual to conform to the position he had taken as a member of the society he lived in. In this society in formation, gifts, and wealth in general, could be used by those who fought, and by those in power in particular, to demonstrate status and to establish and maintain lordship, be it by constructing good relations with higher and lower status people, or by attracting armed men. A large following underpinned an individual’s status and made him be regarded as powerful. 4. Armament in Contemporary Thinking The next sections will investigate further the significance of the world of war in contemporaries’ everyday lives and thinking. It has been assessed above that the sources leave little room for doubt that armament could have a positive connotation and attract people’s interest. This is best doc­ umented by a letter of Sidonius Apollinaris addressed to an otherwise unknown friend called Domnolus. Referring to the cortege of a young bar­ barian prince and his following, he wrote: You who are so fond of looking at arms and armed men, what delight, methinks, you would have felt if you had seen the young prince Sigismer, decked out in the garb and fashion of his nation […]. The total effect was such that this […] displayed a pageant of Mars no less than of Venus. But why say more about it? The fine show lacked only one thing – your presence.391

391 Tu cui frequenter arma et armatos inspicere iucundum est, quam voluptatem, putamus, mente conceperas, si Sigismerem regium iuvenem ritu atque cultu gentilicio ornatum, utpote sponsum seu petitorem, praetorium soceri expetere vidisses. […] cuncta prorsus huiusmodi, ut in actione thalamorum non appareret minor Martis pompa quam Veneris. sed quid haec pluribus? spectaculo tali sola praesentia tua defuit. Sid., Epist. IV 20.1 snd 20.3, pp. 70–1. Transl. W.B. Anderson (1997), 137–9. See also credidi ulterius officiorum differre sermonem, ne vester affectus quandam vitio meo duceret ut gladius inpolitus de curae raritate robiginem. Sid., Epist. VI 6.1, p. 98.



the military and the world of thought233

The many weapons found in late Roman and early medieval burials of north-western Europe and the written evidence both suggest that arma­ ment must have been of some relevance to those living in this society. The fact that weaponry was widespread and commonly available raises the question as to what values were attributed to and conveyed by these objects, and whether further symbolism was associated with them. 4.1. Symbolisms attributed to Weapons There seems to be general agreement among current researchers that late Roman and early medieval society, in particular, associated specific values and symbolisms to armament that went beyond their usability or function in the context of armed violence.392 This extended worth is demonstrated by, amongst other things, the opulent decorations found on some weapons393 and the rare inscriptions added to them.394 As F. Theuws and M. Alkemade recently underlined, this value, which was not restricted to an object’s material worth or utility, emerged primarily from the (symbolic) meanings attributed to it.395 The comprehensive sur­ vey of D. Hüppe-Dröge on the use of weapons in a legal context argues that the weapons that were used most frequently in a ritual context were those that people used most.396 This means that the arms to which fur­ ther value or symbolic meaning were most likely to be attributed were not the most lavish, but the most common. The weapon mentioned most frequently by the written sources in connection with people who did not belong to the highest societal stratum, suggesting that it was a popular weapon, is the spear/lance.397 392 See, for example Meyer (2005), 54; Hadley/Moore (1999), 31; Halsall (1998, Violence, 3–4). On medieval symbolism in general, see also Althoff (1993), 30. 393 See figure 8; Lebedynsky (2001), 33. 394 See Düwel (1981), 131, 154, 157; Opitz (1979), 231. For a contemporary evidence on the tradition of writing runes, see Fort., Carm. 7.18. 395 Theuws/Alkemade (2000), 444. 396 Hüppe-Dröge (1981), 127. See the definition of rituals suggested by G. Halsall (1998), as “a performed restatement of cosmology, broadly defined as including man’s relations with man and with the environment, as well as with the supernatural.” (p. 32). For further evidence on weapons used in the context of Germanic and other early medieval legislative traditions, see ibid., 122–7. 397 See, for example, Greg., Hist. 3.6, 3.15, 4.18, 4.48, 7.3, 7.21, 7.29, 7.38, 7.39, 7.46, 8.44, 9.10, 9.35, 10.9, 10.15; Greg., Mart. 71. See also Lebedynsky (2001), 161–3; Hüppe-Dröge (1981), 112–13. Although the Merovingian legislation does not account for rituals requiring spears, the duel fought to establish the case of an unlawfully killed auerochs was fought out, according to Gregory of Tours, with this weapon, see Greg., Hist. 10.10. The lance/spear appears to have been the most common ‘Germanic’ weapon of earlier times, see Raddatz (1967), 5. As neither the terminology, see lancea, hasta, framea, iaculum, cf. Hüppe-Dröge

234

chapter five

This assumption is supported by the archaeological record398 and the iconographical evidence, in which this weapon is rather prominent.399 Apart from a strictly military context, this weapon appears prominently on the signet ring of the early Frankish king Childeric I. Although this pic­ ture was, in all likelihood, drawn according to a late Roman iconography known from earlier coins,400 this depiction suggests that this weapon remained important in the context of the display of power until postRoman times. That this weapon could be attributed a positive connota­ tion to in an aristocratic context is suggested by Venantius Fortunatus, who compared the eloquence of the dux Lupus of Champagne to a lance.401 A comparable positive connotation could be associated with the picture found on the back of the well-known stele of Niederdollendorf showing a warrior with a short sword (spata) at the front. As the figure engraved on the back of the same stone has a nimbus engraved around his head, it is often understood to represent Christ. In his right hand, he holds a spear or lance.402 Considering the evidence provided by these few find­ ings, it appears likely that this weapon was associated with values such as power and authority, possibly including ideas such as rightfulness.403 The most common defensive weapon was the shield. It is possible that the spear/lance and the shield represented together something like the minimal set of armament for a post-Roman fighter.404 Their significance in the context of power and authority and the supposition that both arms were strongly associated with the idea of giving protection is suggested not least by the words which Gregory of Tours attributed to king Guntramn, the latter reportedly addressing the following words to his nephew: “Let one single shield protect us both […] and a single spear defend us.”405 In the Salian Law, the shield is mentioned three times. 1981, 117, nor the archaeological evidence allows distinguishing between spears and lances, the subsequent analysis deals with both as one type of arm. 398 See, for example, figure 8, the tables in Steuer (1968), 64, fig. 3, and 75–87; Brather (2008, Zusammenfassung), 436. 399 See figures 7 and 9. 400 See figure 3. Axboe (2004), tab. 7, fig. 16. See also Lebedynsky (2001), 27. 401 Lancea sermo fuit, quoque vox armata loquentis. Fort., Carm. 7.7, l. 27, p. 150. 402 See figure 14. See Quast (2002), 275; Wieczorek/Périn (1997, vol. 2), 1024–5; Padberg ( 1995), 313; Salin (1959), 402. 403 F. Theuws (2009) likewise underlines that “[t]he lance […] was a symbol of author­ ity in the Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, interestingly enough, in both Roman and barbarian contexts” (p. 303). 404 Hüppe-Dröge (1981), 112–13 and 116–17. 405 ‘Una nos parma protegat unaque asta defenda. […]’. Greg., Hist. 5.17, p. 216. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 275.



the military and the world of thought235

Figure 9. Silver phalera depicting an equestrian, possibly a saint. The figure kills a snake with a human head. From harness decoration. Dated around 616. Dim.: 10.9-11-4 cm. Burial finding from Hüfingen, Germany. Location: Badisches Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe, in Germany, inv. nr. 73/171 a. Image courtesy of Andreas Franzkowiak from Halstenbek. Licence CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://commons .wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Silver_disc_Hüfingen_St_George.jpg, 12/04/2013).

It appears twice in an ambiguous function in connection with two similar rituals held at the thing-tribunal,406 and in a third section the same law decreed the punishment of a false accusation that a person had thrown 406 Lex Sal. 44.1–2, 46.1. R. Schmidt-Wiegand (1994) assumes that if “der thunginus als Gerichtsherr ein Schild bei sich haben musste, so kann dies durchaus als ein Relikt aus seiner einstigen Rolle als Priester und einer durchaus abgeleiteten Magie angesehen werden” (p. 251). See also Hüppe-Dröge (1981), 120–1.

236

chapter five

away his shield.407 This last stipulation reminds the dishonour which Tacitus associated with a Germanic fighter having lost the same.408 If the act of getting rid of a shield in order to become faster when taking flight was associated with the reproach of cowardice,409 the holding of a shield, which thus could have demonstrated a man’s readiness to face his enemies, might have been associated with ideas such as courage or pug­ naciousness. The weapon that is best known in both written and archaeo­ logical evidence, however, is the sword. It was used throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages in various forms and for different purposes. The short sax/scramasax, a sword with only one blade edge and thus quite similar to the Roman gladium,410 for example, was primarily used to bat­ ter,411 whereas the long double-edged spata was more convenient for stabbing.412 The sax was very common413 before it finally disappeared at the end of the millennium.414 Contemporary sources often referred to it using the term gladium. This arm was closely associated with military men, and the few iconographic warrior-depictions known of the period in question usually showed them with this weapon.415 In contrast with the gladium, the spata was greatly valued throughout the Middle Ages. A large variety of significances, attributes, and skills – including magic – were apparently associated with it.416 More than any other weapon, it stood for the good and the bad that could be achieved by those who knew how to use it, including victory and glory, or death and subjugation.417 This two-sidedness is best documented by the anonymous author of the Liber Historiae Francorum, reporting that in Saxon territory, Chlothar II “did not leave alive there any man who stood taller than his sword which is called a long sword (spata). He established this as a 407 Lex Sal. 30.6. 408 Tac., Germ. 6. Cf. Haubrichs (1996), 44. For further references and modern theories regarding the shield in legal tradition, see Hüppe-Dröge (1981), 120–1. 409 Similar ibid., 116–17. 410 Cf. ibid., 118–19. 411 Greg., Hist. 4.51; LHF 32, 35. Lebedynsky (2001), 144–152; Martin (1993), 396–7; Hüppe-Dröge (1981), 120; Salin (1949), 217–20. 412 Theuws/Alkemade (2000), 419. Only few examples could be that can be dated fairly reliably to the fourth or fifth century, see Böhme (1974, Grabfunde), 97. On the evolution of the sword and its use since earlier Roman times, see Raddatz (1967), 15–17. 413 Cf. Hüppe-Dröge (1981), 120. 414 Meyer (2005), 55. 415 See figure 10. 416 See Meyer (2005), 54–9; Theuws/Alkemade (2000), 419–35. On the sword in Roman Iron Age northern Europe, see Raddatz (1967), 5. 417 Cf. F. Theuws and M. Alkemade (2000) also underlining that “the sword has its opposite meanings: it brings fame and glory. But also death and destruction” (p. 420).



the military and the world of thought237

symbol in that region and returned as the victor to his own land.”418 The sword thus provided the only criterion for deciding whether an individual should live or die. A similar oblique symbolism is implicit in a stipulation found in the Lex Ribuara. It decreed that a free Ripuarian woman loving an unfree should choose between spindle and spata. By opting for the spindle she would have to follow her lover to servitude, whereas selecting the sword implied the servant’s death.419 Although not a weapon, the belt (cingulum, balteus) had likewise been associated with the military since late Antiquity, when it was understood as a symbol for armed service. Sulpicius Severus, for example, alluded to a man’s renouncement of military service by entering monastic life with the words: “A certain soldier had laid aside his sword-belt in a church to enter upon monastic profession.”420 Although it remains uncertain whether the sword was worn hanging on the belt, or whether a supple­ mentary flange was used for that,421 (metallic) belts, and chip carved belts in particular, had been worn by late Roman military men, including barbarian soldiers.422 In the early Middle Ages, lavishly decorated423 or inscribed424 belts were willingly exchanged as gifts425 and remained important symbols of power and military function throughout the whole period focused on here.426 Although the evidence is rather scarce, there is little room for doubt that early Christian society attributed specific ideas and values to weap­ ons that went beyond their use in the context of warfare. A key notion 418 Rex vero, tota terra Saxonorum vastata, populo illo interfecto, non ibi maiorem hominem viventem relinquit, nisi ut gladius suus, quod spata vocant, per longum habebat. Hoc signum in regione illa statuit, reversusque est rex victor in terra sua. LHF 41, p. 314. Transl. B.S. Bachrach (1973), 99. See also Gerberding (1987), 165. 419 Quod si ingenua Ribvaria servum Ribvarium secuta fuerit et parentes eius hoc refragare voluerint, offeratur ei a rege seu a comite spada et cunucula. Quod si spadam acciperit, servum interficiat. Sin autem cunuculam, in servitio perseveret. Lex Rib. 61.18, p. 113. See also Hüppe-Dröge (1981), 125. 420 Miles quidam cingulum in ecclesia, monachum professus, abiecerat. Sulp., Dial. II 11.1, p. 192. Transl. B.M. Peebles (1949), 217. See also James (1999), 21. Cf. Arce (2005), 39; Fehr (1999), 110; Demandt (1998), 224. 421 Fehr (1999), 106 and 109; Weidemann (1982), 263. 422 On late Roman military belts, see Böhme (2008), 84–99. See also Böhme (1998), 36. 423 See Merob., Pan. 2, ll. 79–83; Jon., Elig. 1.12; Vit. Aud. 3; Böhme (1998), 36. 424 See Werner (1977), 323. 425 See Greg., Hist. 2.42, 5.18. 426 Fort., Carm. 7.7, l. 39; Halsall (2005, Invasions), 48; Hadley/Moore (1999), 30; Fehr (1999), 110–11. Cf. Halsall (2008), 110; James (1999), 21; Halsall (1992, Reihengräberzivilisation), 205. The assumption that belts were symbols for authority is also supported by the fact that these objects are mostly found in burials attributed to men of mature age. Brather (2008, Kleidung), 264.

238

chapter five

Figure 10. Golden type-B bracteate, showing a human figure with knee long trou­ sers and belt, holding a sword in the left hand and a stave, flanked by two upright animals. Second half of the fifth to first half of the sixth century. Diam. 2.9 cm. Hoard finding near Friedrichsthal in Germany. Location: Museum für Vor-und Frühgeschichte der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, inv. no. II 1953. Illustration from Wieczorek/Périn (1997), 1031, fig. 35, cat. IX.2.35. Courtesy of Bernd Schnarr.

that was readily conveyed by armament is power and authority, which could be associated with the lance and the spata, whereas courage and possibly something like a warrior identity may have emanated from the sax/scramasax and shield. However, as the evidence refers mainly to the upper social stratum, it is difficult to establish whether the less lavish



the military and the world of thought239

weapons were associated with similar ideas and values. It seems notewor­ thy that a comparatively strong symbolism referring to highly accessible ideas such as power and authority was attributed primarily to the more extravagant weapons, although this impression could easily be a product of the scarcity of evidence. 4.2. Rituals involving Weapons The sources contain several mentions of weapons used in a ritual context, although the evidence is rather fragmentary. They do not contain, for example, any information regarding rites of passage which may have been performed when a youth reached maturity. Comparable procedures, referring to early Germanic traditions, have only been mentioned by the Roman historian Tacitus, who described how boys were ceremoni­ ally  handed a spear and shield when they reached the age of potential warriors.427 Nor is there any more detailed information to hand on rites such as those known to have been performed in earlier times like, for example, the ritual demolition of enemy weapons following a successful battle.428 Among the known ceremonies, the sword (gladium, spata, sax, scramasax) is again the weapon that is known to have been most frequently and versatilely used, even though the sources often fail to specify the exact type of weapon used in a specific rite. The general term arma often seems to refer to this weapon, as in the case of a type of oath given on an unspec­ ified weapon mentioned in the Ripuarian Laws. This stipulated that in cases where a property was disputed, a vow should be offered “with the right hands armed” (cum dexteras armatas).429 Archaeological burial evidence backs the assumption that Ripuarian Law implicitly associated the sword with this expression, as this weapon is generally found on the right hand side of the deceased.430 A formula found in the Marculf collection stipulated that prospective antrustiones were expected to come to their respective king with their arm to swear

427 Tac., Germ. 13. However, sources composed in later centuries do contain references to comparable rites, see Meyer (2005), 58–9. 428 See Müller (2002), 112–17 and 93–158, with informations on further earlier rituals involving weapons. See also Nicolay (2008), 241–13; Derks /Jefferis (1998), 46–7. 429 Tunc in praesente ambo coniurare debent cum dexteras armatas, et cum sinistras ipsam rem teneant. Lex Rib. 37.1, p. 89. 430 Böhme (1974, Grabfunde), 100. D. Hüppe-Dröge (1981, 126) also acts on the assump­ tion that the weapon that is implicitly referred to here is the sword.

240

chapter five

fealty and fidelity (trustem et fidelitatem).431 It seems most unlikely that any weapon other than the sword was used here. The lavish swords already mentioned, with a ring attached, provide a further hint that this was the weapon that was used here. These findings are generally dated between the late fifth and early seventh century, a time when Merovingian kings were most powerful and were thus in all likelihood most disposed to maintain a retinue of strong men.432 It seems highly probable that these weapons were actually used in the context of the ritual mentioned in the formula, in the course of which a man joined a ruler’s trusted.433 The archaeological findings show that initially these rings were attached belatedly to these swords,434 which suggests that this ceremony, in a first phase, might have included the ring’s fixation to the claimant’s weapon, whereas the swords that had been forged with a ring in a second phase might have been donated by the ruler in the course of the same ritual.435 In his Histories, Gregory alluded to a related ritual. Mummolus, the for­ mer patricius of the king Guntramn, and subsequently supporter of the usurper Gundovald,436 reportedly decided perfidiously to hand the latter over to his enemies. According to Gregory, Mummolus asked the usurper to this end to “[t]ake off my golden baldric, which you have round your middle. […] Take your own sword and give me back mine”, whereas Gundovald reportedly replied “‘I am not such a fool that I cannot see through your words […] now that these things which I have worn as sym­ bols of our friendship are about to be taken from me.’”437 This passage suggests that a specific relationship between two men could be concluded 431 Et quia illi fidelis, Deo propitio, noster veniens ibi in palatio nostro una cum arma sua in manu nostra trustem et fidelitatem nobis visus est coniurasse. Form. Marc. 1.18, p. 55. 432 See H. Steuer (1987, Ringschwert, 225–7) convincingly arguing that these weapons belonged to this same group. Comparable findings from northern Europe go back to the Roman Iron Age, see Raddatz (1967), 7–8. 433 Steuer (1987, Ringschwert), 208–13. 434 See ibid., 211. 435 Cf. Form. Marc. 1.18. Very similar Steuer (1987, Ringschwert), 223, underlining fur­ thermore that “[d]ie Normung von Ringpaaren läßt das Persönliche nicht mehr erkennen, […]. Ringschwerter sind Gruppenabzeichen” (p. 214), to continue suggesting that “[e]ine königliche oder entsprechend ranghohe Werkstatt hat diese Schwerter in Serie herg­ estellt, um sie Kriegern zu verleihen und dann zu bestimmtem Zweck auch mit Ringen zu versehen” (p. 220). He differs two different forms of ring-swords: “a) verschiedenste Schwerter, an die Ringpaare angeheftet wurden, wobei Knäufe beschädigt wurden, und (b) Schwerter, die unmittelbar als Gefolgschaftswaffen entstanden” (p. 220). 436 See Bachrach (1994). 437 ‘[…] Nunc autem depone balteum meum aureum, quod cingeris, […] et tuum adcinge gladium meumque restituae.’ […] ‘Non simpliciter […] haec verba suscipio, ut ea quae de tuis usque nunc in caritate usus sum a me auferantur.’ Greg., Hist. 7.38, p. 361. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 422.



the military and the world of thought241

by a mutual exchange of sword and baldric. It is hard to tell to what extent this relationship, only vaguely described by Gregory with the words in caritate usus, was characterised by mutual affection, as suggested by the translation given by L. Thorpe, by fealty, as suggested by H. Steuer,438 or by service, as suggested by H. Fehr.439 It appears that Gregory was most concerned with underlining Mummolus’ treachery by speaking of a mutual affection (caritas), whereas finding an appropriate term to describe their actual status was only secondary to him. Both rites, the one performed to become part of the antrustiones and the one just mentioned, and the relationship established through them, did not necessarily differ significantly. This is suggested by the similar bestowal of swords and the fact that in both cases an unequal relationship was thereby established. Mummolus was certainly considered inferior to Gundovald, who was sup­ posed to be of Merovingian blood, just as the antrustio was subordinated to his king. Furthermore, both rituals were performed by members of what has been defined above as the military elite. The assumption that the bestowal of a sword could be performed as a rite of subjugation is sup­ ported by H. Steuer, referring to a type of illustration found mainly in northern Europe but which is also documented for southern Germany. This type of depiction shows warriors holding a ring-sword before their head, a posture that leaves little doubt that this was thought to be done as a sign of obeisance or subjugation.440 Supposing that the assumption that ring-swords were used in connec­ tion with the ritual binding of an antrustio to his king is correct, there is a further similarity between the two rites mentioned here. To dissolve either relationship, their material signs had to be restored. In the case of Mummolus and Gundovald, this entailed the restitution of the sword as a whole, whereas the archaeological record suggests that an antrustio who put an end to his commitment was required to detach the ring from his weapon.441 These parallels do not necessarily mean that Mummolus was something like Gundovald’s antrustio, but that similar rituals seem to have been used at least by members of the highest social stratum for connatural purposes.442 The only comparable ritual involving equal 438 Steuer (1987, Ringschwert), 223. 439 H. Fehr (1999) assumes in this context that the lavish belts might be understood as “das vom König verliehene Zeichen der in einem Dienst stehenden nobilitas” (p. 111). 440 See figure 11. Steuer (1987, Ringschwert), 203–6 and 223, 226. 441 See Steuer (1987, Ringschwert), 223–6. 442 That they were not necessarily used exclusively by members of the military elite is suggested by a case mentioned by Venantius Fortunatus where a count gave in to Bishop

242

chapter five

Figure 11. Silver and bronze scabbard, decorated with a picture of a warrior with a wolf-mask, holding an over-sized ring-sword in front of his head with his left hand, and a lance in his right hand. Late seventh century, buried after 700. Dim.: 35 × 8.9 cm. Found in Gutenstein, Baden-Würtemberg, Germany, grave nr. 2. Location: GMII Moskau, inv. nr. Aar 641. Image courtesy of the Pushkin Fine Arts Museum, Moscow.



the military and the world of thought243

participants implies the use not of a sword but of a spear/lance. King Guntramn is reported to have adopted his nephew Childebert II and to have introduced him as the successor to his regnancy by placing his spear in his nephew’s hand, saying: “‘This is a sign that I have handed the whole of my realm over to you. Go now, and by this token take under your own rule all my cities, just as if they were yours.’”443 It seems noteworthy that here the spear, once more, appears in a context of power and authority. Weapons, however, were used not only to conclude or dissolve inter­ personal relationships, but had various other functions unrelated to their utility in the context of an armed conflict. The sources are comparatively abundant regarding acts of contestation and acclamation. According to Ammianus Marcellinus, for example, Roman soldiers already used to affirm their anger and indignation by striking their shield with their spear, and to approve a suggestion by rattling the former against their knees.444 A similar course of action is reported two centuries later by Gregory of Tours. After referring to Clovis’ elimination of the Ripuarian king Sigibert and his son Chloderic, he described how the Salian king addressed the inhabitants of Cologne to offer them his protection and hence ask them to accept him as their new ruler. In response, “they clashed their shields and shouted their approval.” What followed was a further act that is like­ wise  known from a military context:445 they raised the claimant up on a shield to make him their new ruler.446 This procedure is reported by the same author in connection with two other rulers: Sigibert I in Vitry following his short-term victory over his brother Chilperic I in 575,447 and the usurper Gundovald raised in 584 as the new king of Aquitaine in

Germanus by offering him his belt and sword: Mox balteum quo cingebatur et spatam pro munere beato Germano contradidit, quod ipse comes dato pretio post redemit. Fort., Germ. 31, p. 18. See also Coates (2000), 1131. 443 ‘Hac est indicium, quod tibi omne regum meum tradedi. Ex hoc nunc vade et omnes civitates meas tamquam tuas proprias sub tui iuris dominatione subice. […]’. Greg., Hist. 7.33, p. 353. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 416. Cf. Greg., Hist. 5.17. Cf. Hedeager (2000), 22–3, referring to a comparable symbolism according to Paul the Deacon referring to the Lombards. 444 […] militares omnes horrendo fragore scuta genibus illidentes (quod est prosperitatis indicium plenum; nam contra cum hastis clipci feriuntur, irae documentum est et doloris). Am. XV 8.15, p. 172. See also ibid. XIV 2.17, XVI 12.13. On the use of this procedure in the context of battle, see Hillingsø ( 2001), 173. 445 See Tac., Hist. 4.15; Derks/Jefferis (1998), 54; Martin (1997), 52–3. 446 At ille ista audientes, plaudentes tam parmis quam vocibus, eum clypeo evectum super se regem constituunt. Greg., Hist. 2.40, p. 91. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 156. Cf. Derks/Jefferis (1998), 54. 447 Greg., Hist. 4.51. Also mentioned in LHF 32.

244

chapter five

Brives-la-Gaillarde.448 The shield was also significant in the context of the representation of those making a legal claim, although this is hard to define more specifically.449 The contestation of an issue in connec­ tion with an arm, on the other hand, is conveyed only by legal sources. According to the Lex Ribuaria, a person who intended to refuse an oath offered to him or to disclaim an allegation of theft, could do so either by blocking the offerer’s passage to the church with his sword,450 or by hang­ ing his sword on the accuser’s home door post.451 In both cases, and com­ parable to the Burgundian decree already mentioned, the dispute had to be settled in single combat fought out between the two opposing parties. The sword, which has emerged already as the weapon with the stron­ gest symbolism, is also the weapon that was used with the largest variance in connection with rituals and related procedures. It appears in connec­ tion with rites and traditions outside any military context and thus had become part of contemporary everyday life and dealings. The prevalence of a comparable weapon in contemporary society confirms once more that, at least from the later fifth century onwards, weapons must have been a common feature. It appears likely that these weapons, which were valued and used in the context of popular procedures, were also used for self-representation to visualise, and possibly to create and maintain, iden­ tities related to them. 4.3. Weapons as a Mark of Identity Archaeological findings, including weapons, have often been used as a means to establish the ethnic distribution of Romans and barbarian peo­ ples such as the Franks, Alamans, or Huns in Europe. This approach pre­ supposes the existence of groups characterised by an ethnicity and culture that allows distinctions to be made between them,452 including a prefer­ ence for, or tradition of, manufacturing and/or using mostly specific types and/or shapes of objects such as belts or brooches.453 This supposition is 448 Greg., Hist. 7.10. Also mentioned in ibid. 7.14. 449 See Lex Sal. 44, 46.1. 450 Quod si ille, qui causam sequitur, manum cancellarli de altario traxerit, aut ante hostium basilice spatam posuerit, tunc ambo constringantur, ut se super 14 noctes seu super 40 ante regem representare studeant pugnaturi. Lex Rib. 62.4, p. 115. 451 Quod si ipsam strudem contradicere voluerit et ad ianuam suam cum spata tracta accesserit et eam in porta sive in poste posuerit, tunc iudex fideiussores ei exigat, ut se ante regem repraesentet, et ibidem cum arma sua contra contrarium suum se studeat defensare. Lex, Rib. 36.4, p. 88. See Hüppe-Dröge (1981), 125. 452 See Effros (2003, Mortuary), 6. 453 Cf. ibid., 8 and 130.



the military and the world of thought245

not a modern invention but goes back to contemporary sources. The term francisca, for example, refers to a specific barbarian group: the Franks. In the seventh century, Isidore of Seville noted that the Hispanics used this term to refer to the axe of the Franks, as it was one of their favourite weap­ ons.454 The discovery of an axe therefore could be regarded as proof of the presence of Franks.455 Although Isidore did not specify what type of axe the term francisca referred to,456 it was soon conjectured that it must have designated a late fifth- to early-seventh-century type of twobladed throwing axe457 – despite the fact that burials from suppos­ edly  Frankish territories mostly comprise one-bladed axes.458 The only Merovingian mentions of a francisca are contained in an early eighthcentury re-narration of the Liber Historiae Francorum referring to stories found in the Histories459 of Gregory. The latter did not use this term.460 The Liber Historiae Francorum did not provide any precise details regard­ ing the form of this weapon. Hence, it does not seem improbable that the term was actually borrowed from the Hispanic etymologist, which sug­ gests that the word francisca might have been a non-Frankish term.461 The assumption that specific types of weapons and other objects were characteristic of specific ethnic groups has been questioned at length in the course of the last decades. It is considered refuted today.462 Weapons might also have been used by ruling members of more or less specific ethnic groups as a sign of power towards a subjugated party. B. Theune-Grosskopf, for example, recently suggested that the ango, 454 Secures signa sunt quae ante consules ferebantur; quas Hispani ab usu Francorum per derivationem Franciscas vocant. Isid., Ety. XVIII 6.9, p. 84. 455 See, for example, more recently Siegmund (2000), 37 and 177. Cf. Steuer (1968), 25; Whittaker (1993), 293. 456 Brather (2004), 315–16; Pohl (1998), 33–4. 457 Today, the term francisca is foremost used to designate related archaeological find­ ings, see Böhme (1974, Grabfunde), 106; Werner (1973), 331. 458 Pohl (1998), 34–5. See also Theuws/Alkemade (2000), 456–9; Böhme (1974, Grabfunde), 109–10. 459 LHF 10, 17. 460 See Pohl (1998), 35. 461 Pohl (1998), 36. Cf. R.A. Gerberding (1987), suggesting that “the addition of this one word [francisca], that is by calling an axe not an ‘axe’ but a ‘Frankish’, the LHF-author gives us good indication that this was the characteristic Frankish weapon” (p. 36). 462 I.N. Wood (1998) concludes, for example, that the francisca “cannot be shown to have any clear correlation with Frankishness” (p. 299). The debate and confutation of related theories, however, is not restricted to this weapon. Very recently, S. Brather (2004, especially 615–31) conclusively argued against comparable ethnical interpretations. See also Lebedynsky (2001), 100; Theuws/Alkemade (2000), 448–70. F. Siegmund (2000, 351–61) advocates for a more ethnic interpretation of archaeological findings.

246

chapter five

a rare and specialised type of spear with a long shaft and a barbed head with a hook,463 which is found mainly in Alemannic territory and almost exclusively on ancient Roman traffic routes, was used by Alamans and Franks acting on behalf of the Merovingian authorities.464 H. Steuer also considers the possibility that the twofold appearance of swords (spata and sax) in Alamannia, compared with findings from Frankish territory, were a deliberate sign of a self-conscious social warrior stratum.465 A less problematic, although still not unambiguous, meaning that may have emanated from an individual’s armament is his free legal status. This position was advocated in more depth a century ago by researchers like H. Fehr, who assumed that only free men had the right to bear weapons, implying a more favourable position than those who did not have this privilege.466 He explained the fact that the written sources also mention unfree individuals bearing weapons467 by assuming that they did not pos­ sess the right to do so by themselves, as their lord could confer and with­ draw this right from his servants at any time.468 The idea that a weapon could be associated with a free legal status is implied in a stipulation already mentioned in the Ripuarian Law. As previously mentioned, it decreed that a free woman loving an unfree could choose between sword and spindle, where the first option implied the death of her beloved and through this the maintenance of her own free status.469 Although the assumption that the carrying of weapons was considered a sign of legal free status has been contested by historians such as T. Reuter referring to the Carolingian age,470 it is still a very popular idea readily adopted today.471 It should, however, be pointed out that the fifth- to seventhcentury sources do not contain any unambiguous evidence in this regard, nor do they explicitly confirm this thesis. The sword and mandrel, for 463 On the ango, see Agath., Hist. 2.5; Lebedynsky (2001), 167–8. Werner (1973), 334; Raddatz (1967), 6. 464 Theune-Grosskopf (2007), 237–8. 465 Steuer (1997, Bauernkrieger), 281. 466 Fehr (1914), 111–211. 467 See, for example Greg., Hist. 3.15, 316, 4.46, 6.17, 7.46, 7.47, 10.2. 468 Fehr (1914), 121–2. 469 Lex Rib. 61.18. 470 T. Reuter (1985) assumes, relating to the Carolingian age, that “there was not just a general duty incumbent on all free men to fight; slaves and the unfree could also be mobil­ ised or subjected to penalties for failing to fight, which should make us rethink the idea that the ‘freedom’ of the ordinary Frank depended on his right and duty to bear arms” (p. 90). See also Theuws (2009, 303) underlining that the axe is ethnically neutral. 471 See, for example Meyer (2005), 57; Lebedynsky (2001), 25–6; Steuer (1997, Bauernkrieger), 281. See also Steuer (1997, Krieger), 275; Martin (1993), 395.



the military and the world of thought247

example, could equally refer to the death of the slave and only thereby to the girl’s free legal status.472 Furthermore, the fact that members of the Church were apparently likewise compelled to join a king’s military host473 suggests that taking up arms was not always considered a privilege but could also represent a basic necessity.474 Although this does not exclude the possibility that, according to early medieval thinking in par­ ticular – and not least as weapons had apparently become an important feature of elitist self-representation – an individual’s armament in some way referred to that person’s free status, this theory is based primarily on conjecture, rather than on explicit evidence. The same is true with regard to the idea that weapons were a genderrelated attribute that referred to a person’s manliness. Strictly military arms such as swords, spears or shields, in particular, have been found almost exclusively in male burials – in so far as the gender of the respec­ tive deceased could be checked by post-mortem examination – which seems to confirm that they were a standard masculine grave-good.475 That these weapons were primarily male attributes is also affirmed, at least implicitly, by the written evidence, which only mentions these arms when referring to men. A piece of information that a weapon certainly could convey is whether an individual belonged to the highest stratum of society. Although it is impossible to reconstruct the social composition of late antique and early medieval societies as a whole by means of archaeological data,476 there is little doubt that lavish armament was restricted to the members of the elite. A differentiation between common and elitist armament can also be found in the Ripuarian Law, defining the worth of the different weapon types by comparing them to other objects of value and their respective equivalent amounts.477 As D. Hüppe-Dröge argued, this law evaluated the worth of common weapons such as spears or shields with reference to the worth of farm animals and other everyday goods, whereas more elaborate types of armament such as the sword were placed on a par with elements that belonged primarily to a more elitist sphere, such as hunting hawks or 472 Cf. Greg., Hist. 3.18. 473 See Greg., Hist. 5.26; 7.42. Cf. Conc. Epa. 4; Conc. Mat. 5. 474 Cf. G. Halsall (1998) suggesting that “involvement in higher-level violence was related to the life-cycle and a career path based upon it rather than upon birth or position in a ‘vertical’ hierarchy of ranks” (p. 31). 475 Halsall (1998), 31. Cf. also: Hadley/Moore (1999), 29; Halsall (1992, Reihengräberzivilisation), 205. 476 Cf. Steuer (1968), 57, fig. 1. 477 Lex Rib. 40.11.

248

chapter five

horses.478 According to this author, the fact that the availability of a scab­ bard significantly increased the value of a sword proves that the precious­ ness of the material and its processing must have enhanced the value of an object.479 Neither is there any doubt that only the most wealthy could afford weapons such as the helmets, lavish swords, or mail shirts noted in the Ripuarian Law, with a value of six, seven, and twelve healthy horned cows respectively.480 Apart from these weapons, the ango is virtually exclu­sively found in lavish graves.481 Most burials that included this weapons included a whole set of arms, always with a sword and shield, and in most cases a lance and an axe,482 as in the case of the burial of the young prince found under the cathedral of Cologne.483 The same refer­ ence to a more elitist sphere can be attributed to objects related to eques­ trian activities such as bridles, which seem to have become an almost exclusive privilege of members of the upper social stratum.484 Objects such as lavish swords and helmets, angones, or mail shirts, thus appear as prestigious features of the elite that represented their status in society, as well as in a funerary context, together with exclusive cloth or jewellery. It is likely that the Turonian comes Leudast, who had succeeded in rising from an unfree status to this high office, preferred to enter the church house wearing cuirass, helmet, javelin and mail shirt,485 not only because he wished to protect himself from possible assaults, as suggested by 478 Hüppe-Dröge (1981), 111–12. Cf. Halsall (2008), 110–11. 479 Hüppe-Dröge (1981), 112. See also Meyer (2005), 58–9; Werner (1973), 335. F. Theuws and M. Alkemade (2000) furthermore suggest that “[b]ecause of his descent and training the young warrior is gifted with the necessary capabilities for the use of the sword and with the knowledge of the proper contexts of use. This makes the sword a special preroga­ tive for elite groups and a symbol of their obvious dominant position. The sword is thus related to contemporary ideas on what society is and how it is perpetually redefined and renewed by the actions of heroic people” (p. 420), adding that “[f]rom the evidence gath­ ered up to now in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany north of the Main and west of the Elbe, it can be deduced that sword (and/or Langsax) depositions occur only in c. 16% of the known cemeteries. Furthermore, of these cemeteries 79% contain not more than one or two examples” (pp. 426–7), and underlining that “[s]words of the exquisite quality of those of the fifth and early sixth centuries were circulating among the highest ranking persons in northern Gaul. They were used as gifts or in ceremonial exchange” (p. 435). 480 Similar Lebedynsky (2001), 26. Helmets and leg protections were already exclu­ sively restricted to warriors belonging to the upper stratum of ancient Germanic society. Hüppe-Dröge (1981), 110. See also Pflug (1989), 46. 481 Theune (2007), 23. 482 Martin (1993), 395. 483 See Werner (1973), 331. 484 Werner (1973), 338; Steuer (1968), 33. 485 Qui, adsumpto, ut diximus, comitatu, in tali levitate elatus est, ut in domo ecclesiae cum toracibus atque loricis, praecinctus pharetra et contum manu gerens, capite galeato ingrederetur, de nullo securus, quia omnibus erat adversus. Greg., Hist. 5.48, p. 258.



the military and the world of thought249

his bishop Gregory, but first and foremost because he was proud of his achieve­ment and the elitist status it entailed, both of which he readily displayed. Weapons certainly had a representative function. However, the sources do not contain much explicit information in this regard, possibly because it was part of contemporaries’ everyday experience and was thus taken for granted, meaning that further information and comment did not appear necessary. Although weapons might have conveyed specific informa­ tion on the provenance or social status of their bearer, this is difficult to re-construct with satisfactory certainty from a present-day perspective. 4.4. Summary This chapter argues that late Roman and Merovingian society, in particu­ lar, used weapons for various purposes and attributed a wide range of significances to armament. Weapons were used not only for selfrepresentation by referring to power and authority or an individual’s social status, but had also a significant role in the context of extra-military rites and practices, including (barbarian) legal procedures, and in the context of rituals aiming at establishing or dissolving inter-personal rela­ tions at the highest social level. In light of this extensive usability and sig­ nificance of armament, it does not seem far-fetched to assume that armament had become a constituent part of contemporaries’ everyday thinking. 5. Male Appreciation and Potency In a society where the world of war was present enough to see weapons become everyday features, used for various purposes unrelated to the use of violence, those who were expected to excel in military matters were in all likelihood most strongly instilled with warlike expectations and values. In the Roman and post-Roman world, military functions were exclusively executed by men.486 The aim of the next chapter is to investigate what 486 If at all, women are reported to have used poison or magic to defeat an enemy, see, for example Greg., Hist. 4.25, 8.31, 9.38. Another female procedure was to ask a (male) third party to do the job, see, for example ibid. 6.13, 9.40, 9.41, 10.5. A rare exception of a women using a weapon can be found in ibid. 9.27. However, she did not use her own weapon but the one of a drunk man who harassed her. The mention found in the Liber Historiae Francorum 36 of Queen Fredegund leading an army is not confirmed by contemporary testimony. Similar Fred. 2.62. See also Sulp., Dial. 2.11.

250

chapter five

it might have been like to be a man in Gaul between the (late) fifth and the seventh century, in a world that within a century had become signifi­ cantly characterised by a relatively high valuation of elements related to war, a general state of endangerment, and the necessity to eke out a living in the same society. What ideas and ideals was a man explicitly, and most of all implicitly, required to satisfy? What importance did warlike ideas and values have in a man’s life? A poem composed by Venantius Fortunatus, apparently to be read out in the context of a banquet, gives a vivid first impression of the male sphere that will be focused on here: You who read the words inscribed round the beautiful metal,  if you come pure in heart, you imitate this piece of work. For, as silver is provided in the hot furnace,  so man improves himself by cleansing his heart. You who come as a loyal companion to feast with your dear friends,  you take more in love that which is lesser at feasts. A foreign guest did not bear these over the sea,  take happily what the homestead gods have produced. Though grave care with learned speech oppresses you,  come here and join in as a poet with your festive merriment. But in such a way that an honourable man keeps his proper reason,  for unguarded speech lends to create strife. Man’s life is short, present moments flee away;  devote yourself rather to what will remain undying. Establish justice, spread peace abroad, love Christ,  seek the delights which you will enjoy for ever. After the weight of business, throw off the palace squabbles;  a hospitable table bids us enjoy life. Let quarrels, anger and tumult fall silent, the courts, disputes and law;  here let the tranquillity rule which a welcome day brings. I’m asking you, bring a peaceable spirit to table;  seek an enemy elsewhere, if a fight is what you want. Refuse to pursue a quarrel in the midst of pleasures;  let the field furnish you with arms, the table with vegetables. If you are to be considered a great-hearted man of steely virtue,  tell of fierce war to the wine cups without threat. He who comes here to acknowledge the festivities of our table,  let grace alone commend the food set in front of him.487 487 Qui legis in pulchro circumdata verba metallo,/ si venias purus, hoc imitaris opus./ nam velut argentum calida fornace probatur,/ sic se purgato pectore prodit homo./ Qui venis ad caros conviva fidelis amicos,/ quod minus est epulis plus in amore capis./ non haec per pelagus peregrinus detulit hospes:/ sume libens patrii quod genuere lares./ Quamvis doctiloquax te seria cura fatiget,/ hac veniens festos misce poeta iocos./ sic tamen, ut propriam rationem servet honestus,/ nam solet incautus sermo movere manus./ Vita brevis hominum,



the military and the world of thought251

This little text alludes to virtually every major aspect of the contemporary male’s lived and thought world, touching on subjects such as fighting and feasting, death and life, hostility and peace, provocation and agreement, demonstration of warlike virtues and qualities related to eloquence, mar­ tial and Christian virtues, all of them contrasted in this manner by refer­ ring to the battlefield on the one side and the royal dinner table on the other.488 The text does not hide the fact that the peace established in the latter context could easily end up in more or less violent struggles arising from rivalry. The male qualities referred to are not all directly related to the warlike sphere and include, alongside aggressiveness, inexorability, boastfulness and comparisons to metals, allusions to purity, justice, loy­ alty, generousness, and thoughtfulness. The many-sidedness of contem­ porary male ideals is best illustrated in the first line of the last section of the poem, suggesting that being considered magnanimous and simulta­ neously of stubborn virtues represented all that a man could aspire to – rigida virtute possibly being a wordplay referring equally to martial and sexual capabilities.489 The corpus of male virtues presented here thus comprise, alongside virtues such as eloquence, justice, or thoughtfulness known to have been important in Roman times, qualities that at that time would rather have been attributed to barbarians and were thus readily associated by Roman authors with martial virtues and violent beha­ viour.490 In order to find out to what extent those elements just referred to were important to a man’s identification as a male, the following sec­ tions will take a closer look at men’s identity, their ways of presenting themselves, and the requirements they were supposed to meet. As the fugiunt praesentia rerum:/ tu cole quae potius non moritura manent./ erige iustitiam, sere pacem, dilige Christum,/ expete delicias quas sine fine geras./ Pelle palatinas post multa negotia rixas:/ vivere iucunde mensa benigna monet./ causae irae strepitus sileant, fora iurgia leges:/ hic placeat requies, quam dat amica dies./ Quem rogo, pacificos animos ad prandia defer:/ hostem quaere alibi, si tibi pugna placet./ deliciis mediis lites agitare recuses:/ arma tibi campus, mensa ministret olus./ Si tibi magnanimus rigida virtute videris,/ secure ad calices fortia bella refers./ qui venit huc nostrae dapes cognoscere mensae,/ commendet positos gratia sola cibos. Fort., Carm. 7.24, pp. 175–6. Transl. J.W. George (1995), 67–8. 488 Cf. Theuws/Alkemade (2000) underlining that “[t]he objects in late Roman and early medieval graves refer to a lifestyle in which three aspects seem to be of central importance: a/ martial values; b/ feasting; and c/ body-display” (p. 411). 489 Cf. Garrison (2004, 224), translating rigida, -ae with ‘the erect penis’. 490 See in particular R.W. Mathisen (2007) recently suggesting that “[b]oth explicitly and implicitly late antique writers created a generic barbarian identity that was intimately associated with violent behavior, […] associated with several violence-related traits, including crudelitas (cruelty), feritas (wildness), immanitas (savagery), inhumanitas (inhumanity), impietas (impiety), ferocitas (ferocity), furor (fury), and discordia (discord)” (p. 28).

252

chapter five

sources primarily provide explicit information on what has been defined above as the military elite, the results of the following investigation will first of all apply to this part of society. 5.1. Physical Attributes The ability to make use of weapons and to prevail over another armed opponent requires primarily a good physical constitution and condition. Hence, it does not appear surprising that the sources particularly mention bodily qualities when referring to armed men. Like the poem composed by Venantius Fortunatus just quoted, the description by Renatus Friger­ idus of the late Roman general Aëtius contained in Gregory of Tours’ Histories already discussed above contains Roman and barbarian virtues concurrently. Apart from his martial skills, the general was lauded for his continence, generosity, magnanimity, open-mindedness, love of peace, justice, and patience.491 More than half a century later, his bodily attri­ butes were uprated by the author of the Chronicle of Fredegar. He did not adopt Gregory’s characterisation of Aëtius as being of medium height (medii corporis) but preferred to describe him as being of ‘manlike’ stature (virilis habitu formatus).492 That secular men had a keen interest in bodily features has already been assessed above in the section analysing the per­ ceptions of the few known secular authors. The assumption that this preference was not limited to these few writers is confirmed by further mentions found in the written evidence. Merobaudes, for example, underlined in his panegyric on Aëtius that the same general embraced his offspring with brawny arms,493 whereas more than a century later Gregory pointed out that the patricius Celsus was “a tall man, broad of shoulder, strong of arm, haughty in speech, quick in his reactions and learned in law.”494 This piece of evidence once more points to a coexistence of both martial qualities and Roman virtues. A good physical constitution, fur­ thermore, implies being in good shape and in a state of physical integrity. This is what may be learnt from Gregory’s affirmation regarding Aëtius that, beyond the qualities already mentioned, the latter did not suffer any 491 Greg., Hist. 2.8. 492 Virilis habitu formatus. Fred. 3.1, p. 92. 493 […] nodosis ferus ambiat lacertis. Merob., Carm. 4, l. 14, p. 61. 494 […] virum procerum statu, in scapulis validum, lacertu robustum, in verbis tumidum, in responsis oportunum, iuris lectione peritum. Greg., Hist. 4.24, p. 156. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 218. Surprisingly, the author of the Chronicle of Fredegar only considered it neces­ sary to repeat Gregory’s subsequent description of Celsus being verum in verbis paratum et in cupiditate prumtissimus. Fred. 3.55, p. 108.



the military and the world of thought253

bodily infirmity.495 Although the sources do not explicitly mention that lacking physical shape was particularly despised by military men, they do contain hints that physical misfits were at least not appreciated by the latter. King Clovis I, for example, managed to convince the son of Sigibert of Cologne of his father’s impending fall by reminding him that the latter was old and lame, according to Gregory of Tours.496 The same author reports that king Guntramn repudiated his wife Marcatrude after she had put on weight.497 Two generations later, the Chronicle of Fredegar under­ lined that although Theuderic II’s maior domus Claudius had been able to outperform in every quality required of his office, he had been impeded by the clumsiness resulting from his obesity.498 The reproach of poor physical condition and unsightliness, due not least to adiposis and a lack of personal hygiene, already appears prominently in Sidonius Apollinaris’ vivid and colourful description of a certain Gnatho.499 Although the writ­ ten evidence given here is too scarce to allow extensive deduction, it does allow supposing that physical weakness was viewed unfavourably. This was likewise true regarding any other signs of weakness. A disapproba­ tion of the weak is particularly well documented in the attitude attrib­ uted  by the Chronicle of Fredegar to Childeric’s confidant Wiomad. Apparently, he had no remorse in sacrificing a hundred weak men to help his king regain his regency.500 An enhanced appreciation of the adult and maturity, in contrast with children and the aged, is documented by both the archaeological and legal records. Men and women at an age that per­ mitted them physically to contribute to the protection and preservation of society were buried with the most opulent and numerous grave goods501 and were attributed the highest wergeld.502 495 […] neque infirmitudini esset neque oneri. Greg., Hist. 2.8, p. 51. 496 Ibid. 2.40. 497 Ibid. 3.56. 498 […] sed hoc tantum inpedimentum habebat, quod saginam esset corpore adgravatus. Fred. 4.28, p. 132. 499 Sid., Epist. III 13.6–9. 500 Electis a Wiomado 100 inutiles et in necessitatibus incongruos. Fred. 3.11, p. 96. 501 See Brather (2008, Zusammenfassung), 447–8; (2008, Kleidung), 264–8; Siegmund (2000), 295. B. Effros (2002, Caring) specifies that “women of child-bearing age and men of fighting age or possessing heritable property were frequently those buried with the most lavish displays” (p. 94). Beyond this, graves provide information on the age people died at and, in some cases, how. The recent analysis by E. Stauch (2008, 280), for example, shows that in the early Middle Ages women were particularly threatened to die in early age due to an unlucky birth, whereas those men who had passed adulthood had a good chance to die only at a mature age. 502 Cf. Lex Sal. 14.11, 15.1, 24.4, 24.5, 24.9, 41.1, 41.2, 41.3, 41.5, 41.8, 41.16, 41.17, 41.20. See also Brather (2008, Kleidung), 269 and fig. 10, p. 265. An exception is the long haired boy (puer

254

chapter five

Although the wisdom and skills acquired by the aged were certainly appreciated, the written evidence suggests that the ideal man was expected to acquire this experience and status at a preferably young age. Sidonius Apollinaris, for example, underlined this by referring to the emperor Anthemius: When Anthemius returned, every office was bestowed upon him; he shone upon the world as master of both services and as consul; to this was added the authority of Patrician; and thus with speedy step he ran through the highest dignities that a subject may reach; youth though he was, he mounted the curule throne of the elders, and sat, a young veteran, on the gold that belongs to the old campaigner.503

According to Sidonius, the emperor’s achievements were thus upgraded by his comparatively young age. Beyond this, post-Roman society attributed a particular meaning to a man’s hair.504 The fact that the same wergeld amount was fixed as a com­ pensation for the killing of a longhaired boy under the age of twelve505 suggests that male children grew their hair until it was ritually cut at that age. This assumption is backed by the fact that there were explicit sanc­ tions against the unlawful cutting of a boy’s hair.506 There are further indicators suggesting that hair was generally significant in Merovingian society. Beyond indicating whether a boy was younger or older than twelve, it served as a social indicator. Church men were recognisable by crinitus), which the Lex Salica attributed the same wergeld-amount to than to the mem­ bers of the king’s truste. Lex Sal. 41.18, 54.2. Cf. ibid. 41.5. Confronting this regulation to a similar stipulation regarding pregnant women (Lex Sal. 24.5, 41.19), it appears that both stipulations primarily aimed at providing special protection to the younger generation. 503 […] hinc reduci datur omnis honos, et utrique magister/ militiae, consulque micat: conjuncta potestas/ patricii, celerique gradu privata cucurrit/ culmina conscenditque senum puer ipse curulem,/ sedit et emerito iuvenis veteranus in auro. Sid., Carm. 2, ll. 205–9, p. 179. Transl. W.B. Anderson (1963), 25. See also honor patricius accedit, celerrime, si cogites eius aetatem, si merita, tardissime. Sid., Epist. V 16.1, p. 88; Qui cum se primo vestivit flore iuventus,/ parvus eras annis et gravitate senes. Fort., Carm. 1.15, ll. 7–8, p. 16; ut iuvenem regem redderes esse senem. Ibid. 7.16, l. 30, p. 171. 504 The written and archaeological evidence suggest that in earlier Roman times at least some barbarian tribes from central Europe likewise attributed some importance to their hair, see Tac., Hist. 4.61; Salin (1949), 117–19. See also Sidonius, Carm. 5, l. 242. 505 Si quis puerum infra XII annos usque ad duodecimum plenum occiderit. Lex Sal. 24.1, p. 89. Cf. ibid. 41.18, 54.2. See also ibid. 24.7. 506 Lex Sal. 24.2. The same rite might have been executed for girls, see Lex Sal. 24.3. Cf. M. Diesenberger (2003) assuming that “[i]t would seem that the Germanic ‘rite of passage’ described by Tacitus, namely the award of a spear and a shield to a young man by his father or another great man, was replaced by this Roman custom. There can be no doubt that the Lex Salica refers to this ‘rite de passage’, the ceremonial first hair-cut.” (p. 185).



the military and the world of thought255

their tonsured heads,507 whereas slaves could be distinguished by their shaven hair, at least according to the Lex Gundobada.508 Hair could also be used as an ethnic sign. The Bretons, for example, reportedly wore their hair in a specific manner.509 Furthermore, as already alluded to, letting one’s hair grow could be part of a vow,510 whereas its cutting could be considered a penalty.511 First and foremost, however, hair was a prime dis­ tinctive mark that allowed the identification of the male members of the Merovingian dynasty.512 When in 584 a fisherman discovered a body in the River Marne, its long hair immediately allowed him to identify the dead person as a king or a prince.513 Long hair was thus the exclusive sign of the royal family.514 The significance of long hair in the context of royal power is also documented by the fact that every king who was deposed or removed from succession had his head shaven. When Clovis deposed Chararic and his son, he had their hair cut off before he let them be ordained as a priest and deacon respectively. Following this humiliation, the son reportedly exclaimed: ‘These leaves have been cut from wood which is still green and not lacking in sap. They will soon grow again and be larger than ever, and may the man who has done this deed perish equally quickly.’515

When Clovis heard of this threat, he killed both of them. That hair was particularly significant according to Salian tradition is already alluded to by Sidonius Apollinaris.516 Beyond this, long locks were a prominent fea­ ture of King Chilperic’s depiction on his own signet ring517 and Avitus of Vienne mentioned them in his letter to the latter’s son Clovis.518 507 See, for example, Greg., Hist. 4.4; Pass. Leud. 6; LHF 45. 508 Quicumque ingenuo aut servo fugiento nesciens capillum fecerit. Lex. Gund. 6.4, 6.47. 509 Greg., Hist. 10.9. 510 For example, a man reportedly swore not to cut his hair before he would have told saint Nicetius about a miracle (Greg., Patr. 17.5) and the bishop Ursicinus of Cahors was reportedly compelled to refrain from cutting his hair and beard during three years of pen­ ance (Greg., Hist. 8.20). See also Greg., Hist. 5.15. 511 See Greg., Hist. 10.15. See also Salin (1949), 118. 512 Wallace-Hadrill (1962), 157. 513 Greg., Hist. 8.10. It remains unclear, however, how Chilperic’s son Clovis managed to remain unnoticed in Bordeaux (ibid. 4.47). Did he shorten the length of his hair? 514 See Diesenberger (2003), 174 and 178. 515 ‘In viridi [..] lignum hae frondis succisae sunt nec omnio ariscunt, sed velociter emergent, ut crescere quaeant; utinam tam velociter qui haec fecit intereat!’ Greg., Hist. 2.41, p. 91. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 156. See also, for example, the case of Chlodomer’s sons (ibid. 3.18) and the usurper Gundovald (ibid. 6.24). See also Diesenberger (2003), 190 and 197. 516 Sid., Epist. VIII 9.5. 517 See figure 3. 518 Avit., Epist. 46.

256

chapter five

The exact meaning of this hairstyle, however, remains unknown.519 No explicit evidence proves the assumption made by earlier research that contemporaries attributed some sort of magical power to their king’s hair.520 One may thus only speculate that, apart from being a sign of royal identity, long hair could have been, for example, considered to be a proof of good health or productive energy. There is further evidence suggesting that hair was significant, at least in the seventh century, in a non-royal, secular context. The depiction of a warrior found in Niederdollendorf shows an armed man holding a comb at the height of his head, apparently meant to be combing his hair.521 That looking after one’s hair was consid­ ered important is also indicated in one of Avitus’ letters addressed to the vir spectabilis Sapaudes, who was playfully mocked for not paying attention to his uncombed hair in the context of a Burgundian feast.522 Although secular men were reportedly required to wear their hair shorter than members of the royal family,523 it furthermore appears that those aiming to exert a certain degree of power and influence were supposed to have their hair at a certain length – not least to differ themselves from ecclesiastics or the unfree.524 The Liber Historiae Francorum reports how the Neustrian maior domus Ebroin had been tonsured by force but man­ aged to escape from the monastery of Luxeuil. According to the same source, “Ebroin, having let his hair grow back, gathered his followers to help him, left the monastery of Luxeuil in military array, and returned to Francia with their arms prepared”.525 An exceptional portrait of the same maior domus, found on a coin minted with his name, stands out because of his shoulder-length and noticeably voluminous hair.526 This portrait, and the fact that Ebroin first needed his hair grow back, suggest that hair

519 Cf. U. Koch, J. Pauli, and A. Wiezorek (1997) suggesting that “langes, bis auf die Schultern herabfallendes Haar galt als vornehm und schön. Das Haar als Sitz des Lebens symbolisierte Kraft, Macht, Ehre und Recht” (p. 1009), whereas G. Eggenstein (2008) assumes that “Haare kämmen soll die fortwährende Lebenskraft im Jenseits, die nach ger­ manischer Vorstellung mit dem Haarwuchs in Verbindung stand” (pp. 209–10). 520 See, for example Graus (1965), 323; Wallace-Hadrill (1962), 156; Salin (1959), 54; Bloch (1924). See also Diesenberger (2003), 182–3. 521 See figure 2. 522 Avit., Epist. 86. 523 Agath., Hist. 1.3. See also Diesenberger (2003), 178. 524 See also Greg., Hist. 7.31. 525 Ebroinus capillis crescere sinens, congregati in auxilium sociis, hostiliter a Luxovio caenubio egressus, in Francia revertitur cum armorum apparatu. LHF 45, p. 318. Transl. B.S. Bachrach (1973), 104. 526 See figure 12.



the military and the world of thought257

Figure 12. Silver coin bearing the name of the major domus Ebroin. Obv: Portrait of Ebroin, with his right hand raised. Rev: EBRO/INO. Minted in Paris or Brioude. Dim. 11 mm, 1,23 g. Found in Bais (France). Collec­tion  Bais 99, Acc. 21/1929m. Location: Münzkabinett der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Illustration from http://www.smb.museum/ikmk/, inv. nr. 18202329. Courtesy of Prof. Dr. Bernd Kluge.

of a certain length was not only a feature of the royal family, but a general feature of power. Although the sources are rather incomplete with regard to contempo­ rary ideas and ideals of the perfect body, it appears that the display of strength and good health were particularly important. In view of the fact that in many cultures thick hair is considered a sign for health,527 these two pieces of information might also have been part of the initial message 527 See H. Schutz (2001) underlining that “hair has a long tradition as an indicator of strength and vitality” (p. 178). Cf. Koch/Pauli (1997), 1009.

258

chapter five

conveyed by a man’s hairstyle. In all likelihood both qualities represented constitutive elements of the contemporary notion of the ideal man, not least as they were certainly both crucial to men whose lives relied poten­ tially on their ability to prevail against an opponent in armed combat.528 5.2. Names and Male Identity A man could be associated with martial qualities as soon as his parents chose a first name for their child.529 Of course, these names do not tell anything about their carrier’s skills or accomplishments, but they do reflect, at least to some extent, his parents’ expectations of their offspring. This expectation was, amongst other things, a product of the society in which they lived. As it is not possible to conduct a complete survey of all extant names in this context,530 this section can only aim at providing some examples. They are thus of no statistical significance. Yet, although it is impossible to give even an approximate estimation of the frequency of the many known names, they still allow some tentative statements to be made. The comparatively numerous mentions of names referring to the idea of victory/victoriousness such as Victor or Victorius,531 for example, sug­ gests that they were rather popular. This is not surprising considering the fact that victory was the highest reward to which a soldier/warrior could aspire and it confirms once more the significance of military success. That the meaning of a name was consciously adopted by contemporaries is indicated by Fortunatus’ panegyric on Chilperic I addressing the king with the words: “if a barbarian interpreter were at hand, your name would be rendered also as ‘valiant defender’. It was not for nothing that your parents named you thus.”532 A name’s meaning, however, could only be understood by those who understood the language used to compose it. Virtually all of the barbarian names attributed to the Merovingian kings refer to aspects more or less closely linked to war and/or power. The name 528 Cf. CTh. VII 1.5. 529 Cf. Lex Sal. 24.6. 530 For a survey on current research on names, see Goetz/Haubrichs (2005), 2–4. For further evidence, see the online databasis that can be entered via http://www.neg .uni-tuebingen.de. 531 For example Rut. 1, ll. 493–4; Prosp. Chron. a. 384; Sid., Epist. VII 17.1; Greg., Hist. 2.20, 5.20; Greg., Patr. 3.1; Greg., Mart. 62; Greg., Conf. 55. See also Morlet (1972), 116–17. 532 […] si interpres barbarus extet,/ ‘adiutor fortis’ hoc quoque nomen habes./ non fuit in vacuum sic te vocitare parentes. Fort., Carm. 9.1, ll. 27–9, p. 202. Transl. J. George (1995), 74. That names were not chosen at random has been argued by E. Ewig (1991, 21–69) referring to the royal family.



the military and the world of thought259

‘Chilperic’, for example, was composed of the elements hilp* meaning ‘combat’533 and ric* (*rīka-z) referring to ‘rulership’, ‘power’, or ‘author­ ity’.534 The syllable gund* contained in the name ‘Guntramn’ likewise referred to the idea of ‘combat’,535 whereas sigi* in ‘Sigibert’ once more referred to ‘victory’.536 These names were soon adopted by the rest of the population. A certain Saxon mentioned by Gregory of Tours, for example, had been given the name ‘Childeric’,537 whereas a prominent Austrasian dux was called Guntramn, although with the byname Boso.538 Some fur­ ther examples indicate that children were readily named after successful kings and other war leaders. A vir inluster from Paris had been given the name Dagobert,539 whereas relatives of the bishop Remigius of Reims were named Aëtius and Agricola,540 both referring to prominent Roman military leaders. Many names referring to the military sphere are only documented with regard to non-royals. The name given to the warlike bishop Sagittarius of Gap541 can be translated as ‘bowman’, whereas ‘Heraclius’542 alluded to strength and military prowess by referring to the well-known Greek half-god. Names referring to wild animals appear more frequently. According to Gregory a certain Leo of Poitiers, for example, was “aptly named, for he raged like a lion as he strove to satisfy his every passion.”543 Other popu­ lar names were Ursus/Ursio544 referring to the ‘bear’ or Lupus meaning 533 Morlet (1971), 129. 534 See Goetz/Haubrichs (2005), 150. 535 Morlet (1971), 116. 536 Haubrichs (2004, Hybridnamen), 180; Morlet (1971), 197. 537 Greg., Hist. 7.3, 10.22. Another important man from King Sigibert I’s court had been given the same name, see Greg., Conf. 70. 538 Greg., Hist. 4.50, 5.4, 5.14, 5.18, 5.24, 5.25, 6.24, 6.26, 7.14, 7.32, 7.36, 7.38, 8.21, 9.8, 9.10; Greg., Virt. 2.17. 539 Dipl. 28.7. See also the name Regalis, apparently referring to royalty, Greg., Hist. 10.9, and the name Trojanus, Greg., Conf. 58, possibly referring to the assumed Frankish origo. Cf. Fred. 2.4, 3.2. 540 See the testament of Remigius of Reims reproduced in MGH SRM 3, pp. 338–9. See also Haubrichs (2009), 287–8. 541 Mar., Chron. a. 579; Greg., Hist. 4.42, 5.20, 5.27, 5.28, 7.34, 7.37, 7.38, 7.39. 542 Avit., Epist. 53. 96. Greg., Hist. 4.26, 5.36. 543 Leonem Pectavinsim […], qui nominis sui tamquam leo erat in omni cupiditate saevissimus. Greg., Hist. 4.16, pp. 147–8. Transl. L. Thorpe (1974), 211. See also Haubrichs (2004, Hybridnamen), 188. Other men with the name Leo are mentioned in Greg., Hist. 3.15, 3.17, 10.30; Greg., Mart. 78, 91. 544 See once more Remigius’ testament, p. 339; Greg., Hist. 4.46, 6.4, 9.9, 9.12; Fred. 4.8. Cf. also adolescens quidam nomine Brachio, quod in eorum lingua interpretatur ‘Ursi catulus’. Greg., Patr. 12.2, p. 712. This name was already particularly common in Late Antiquity, see Haubrichs (2009), 294.

260

chapter five

‘wolf’,545 both bearing an implicit reference to strength.546 Another popu­ lar name-element had been derived either from the Latin word magnus meaning ‘great’ or ‘important’, or from the Germanic word magam* refer­ ring to ‘strength’ and ‘power’.547 It is documented in the name ‘Magnus’548 and several Germanic denominations. These included compositions like ‘Magnachar’/‘Magnacarius’,549 including the element hari* and bear­ ing the meaning ‘great warrior’,550 or ‘Magnulf’551 combined with the word wulfa* meaning ‘wolf’.552 Other variations were ‘Magnovald’/ ‘Magnoald’,553 composed with walda* meaning ‘ruler’, ‘governor’,554 and ‘Magneric’,555 composed with *ric, which can be translated as ‘glorious ruler’.556 How­ever, not every man nor every important military leader was given a name that explicitly or implicitly referred to the idea of strength or the world of war and authority. The name of the Neustrian maior domus Erchinoald,557 for example, referred to holiness and purity.558 This idea is close to the one conveyed by the word-element bert* meaning ‘bright’ or ‘glorious’559 frequently found in connection with elements referring to strength and other elements belonging to the military sphere. The name ‘Bertoald’,560 for example, could be translated as ‘bright ruler’, whereas ‘Waldebert’561 or ‘Berthar’/‘Bertharius’562 means ‘glorious warrior’, just like ‘Charibert’563 or ‘Clovis’.564 545 See, for example Const., Germ. 12; Sid., Epist. IV 4, VIII 11.15; Greg., Hist. 4.46, 6.4, 6.13, 7.3, 9.11, 9.12; Greg., Conf. 66, 67; Fort., Carm. 7.7; Fred. 3.71; Desid., Epist. 1.2. 546 On names referring to wild animals, see Haubrichs (2009), 291, 294 and 305; Goetz/ Haubrichs (2005), 15. 547 Goetz/Haubrichs (2005), 19; Haubrichs (2004, Hybridnamen), 192. 548 Sid., Epist. III 4; Epist. Aus. 36. 549 Mar., Chron. a. 565; Greg., Hist. 4.25, 5.17, 5.20, 8.12, 8.37, 9.10; Fred. 3.56, 3.77; Dipl. 149, pp. 375–6. See also Haubrichs (2004, Hybridnamen), 192. 550 Goetz/Haubrichs (2005), 133; Haubrichs (2004, Hybridnamen), 180; Kaiser (1994), 273; Hüppe-Dröge (1981), 115; Schmidt-Wiegand (1972), 234–5. 551 Greg., Hist. 7.27, 7.32; Fort., Carm. 7.10. 552 Haubrichs (2004, Hybridnamen), 185 and 192; Kaiser (2003), 78. 553 Greg., Hist. 8.36, 9.9; Dipl. 149, pp. 375–6. 554 Goetz/Haubrichs (2005), 21; Morlet (1971), 212. 555 Greg., Hist. 8.12, 8.37, 9.10. See also Goetz/Haubrichs (2005), 19. 556 Haubrichs (2004, Hybridnamen), 192. 557 Fred. 4.84, 4.89, 4.90; LHF 42, 45. 558 Cf. Goetz/Haubrichs (2005), 138–9. 559 See ibid., 145. 560 Fred. 4.24. 561 Ibid. 4.54. 562 Ibid. 4.38, 4.90. 563 Mar., Chron. a. 561; Greg., Hist. 4.3, 4.16, 4.18, 4.22, 4.26; Greg., Conf. 14, 19; Greg., Virt. 1.29; Fort., Carm. 6.2; Fred. 3.55, 3.56, 3.57, 3.58, 4.67, 4.78; Dado, Elig. 2.32. 564 See Haubrichs (2004, Hybridnamen), 180.



the military and the world of thought261

As already indicated above, these names only represent a fraction of those that had been used by contemporaries. Names also represent a problematic source of information with regard to the fifth- to seventhcentury world of thought. Roman names referred much less frequently to martial ideas or qualities than Germanic names, as in the latter the tradi­ tion of naming a child with reference to martial values or aptitudes was predominant. On the other hand, neither name-giving tradition was a Merovingian invention. It is thus problematic to make deductions with regard to post-Roman society. Nevertheless, these names appear to have been popular enough to be significant, and it is very likely that warlike values were consciously conveyed by many.565 5.3. Martiality as a Means to Self-Realisation It has been mentioned above that in fifth- to seventh century Gaul, mili­ tary undertakings were a strictly male activity. This exclusivity is not a specific characteristic of late Roman or of Merovingian society, of course. It implies, however, that men rather than women were foremost associ­ ated with armed violence. Armament could thus be considered as an exclusively male tool, which entails that weapons were a potential sym­ bol of manliness.566 That a comparable association was of some relevance to people living in north-western Europe is suggested by the burial evi­ dence from that same region. As military performance was vital to society and as this was a male domain, men could be encouraged or even required to excel in this regard. This must be particularly true in late Roman and Merovingian society, which was substantially characterised by the threat of armed violence. The opportunity to wage war also implied the poten­ tial to expand one’s own property and prosperity to the detriment of oth­ ers. In both cases, the use of force could be a convenient means for individuals to distinguish themselves from others and draw their atten­ tion. Although the evidence is rather scarce in this regard, there is little doubt that military achievements were publically known, recognised,

565 See Haubrichs (2009), 322. Cf. H.-W. Goetz and W. Haubrichs (2005), pointing out that “Gottfried Schramm [hatte] gezeigt, dass Personennamen mit Waffen (z. B. Adalgēr ‘Adelsspeer’) und Kampftieren (Wolf, Adler, Eber, Bär, Rabe usw.) eine geistige Identifizierung des Kriegers mit diesen voraussetzen” (p. 15). 566 Although generally speaking, manliness was not necessarily an exclusively male feature, see Hadley (1999, 5), the late Roman and Merovingian sources do not contain, as far as I can see, any mention associating women to manliness by referring to military achievements. The following sections thus only refer to ‘male’ manliness.

262

chapter five

and discussed.567 Men like Bonifatius, Vitricus, or Apollinaris, for exam­ ple, were explicitly reported to have been renowned for their military achievements.568 Those who succeeded in war-related matters could thus gain admiration. However, a man could also be confronted with envy. The Gothic king Theoderic was knowingly admired by the senators for his abilities in the art of war. However, he was finally begrudged his skills, to the extent that they reportedly sought means to have him eliminated.569 In the best case, a man achieved recognition at an early age. Bishop Leontius, for example, was complimented by Fortunatus for having pre­ vailed as a young man in his king’s campaign against the Visigoths, a suc­ cess that would have sufficed by itself, according to Fortunatus, to elevate him to his own high ranks.570 In post-Roman Gaul, military undertakings were certainly among the most promising opportunities for a man to excel.571 This was possibly what the author of the Chronicle of Fredegar had in mind when he charac­ terised Ricimer’s supposed retreat from his political functions as a “downgrade to private life”.572 As indicated above, military excellence was readily praised in panegyrical writing, as when Pacatus lauded his addressee for his outstanding personal engagement and for having fought at the front line of battle.573 The glory and fame achieved in combat could also be rewarded with new titles and functions. The Arvernian aristocrat Ecdicius, as already mentioned, had been awarded by the emperor the title of patricius for his service in the battlefield,574 just like Mummolus, 567 See de v